0 Atlantic Hurricane Season opens in US

Today is the official opening of hurricane season in the US, at least for Atlantic hurricanes.  NOAA's seasonal outlook (note that the term is 'outlook', not 'forecast') is for more hurricanes than usual.  But do read down in to the discussion of the science behind the outlook.

Also, of course be prepared if you live anywhere in the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico (east or west coast), Gulf Coast, or US East Coast.  As folks got reminded last fall with Sandy, this means all the way up the coast, not just southerly places.

Do read through the full information there, and follow up for more information.  If you've got kids, perhaps ready.gov/kids will be helpful.

Granted you've all heard the advice before, and some (like my sister in Florida) could give seminars on preparedness and preparing your kids.  Still, I've been caught unprepared myself, mostly because I made bad assumptions (obviously bad -- in retrospect). 

One of my bad assumptions was that I didn't need to do my web browsing now, and printing out information now.  After all "You can always pull it up from the web".  Not true when the storm takes down the cell tower, or your phone lines, or your power is out and your smart phone needs recharging. 

Related print out is phone numbers.  One of my sons (not in hurricane country) has observed that if he loses his phone, he'll never be able to talk to people again -- the numbers exist only on his phone.  In hurricane country, your phone may run out and you can't recharge -- long before you've finished calling the people you need to.  Can you call them on someone else's phone?

Hurricanes are hard for me to think around.  I grew up in tornado alley, and did the school safety drills, seen the damage they can do, and cleaned up after one.  But tornadoes are very small, and short-lived.  They can and do certainly wipe out power grids and above-ground phone lines, and the like.  Throw debris all over the roads making them impassable until a crew can get out to make things safe again.  Being small and short-lived, however, means that a) your friends 10 miles away probably didn't get hit by it b) the repair process can proceed much faster c) you don't have to think much about what to do _during_ a tornado -- get as low as you can, with as many walls around you as you can.  When it is past, start your recovery.

Hurricanes can give days, not minutes, of strong effects (wind speeds in hurricanes can be comparable to tornadoes), including not just the winds, but rains that produce flooding, and storm surge as the hurricane plows water onshore ahead of it.  Planning needs to be for days, so what to do for your kids becomes serious question.  Plus what you're all going to do with perhaps several days of no electricity, water, etc..

Hurricanes are also huge (compared to the tornadoes I was accustomed to).  While tornadoes are large (for tornadoes) at 1 mile across, hurricanes aren't particularly large even at 100 miles across.  One thing this means is, if your home is hit by a hurricane, your friends 10 miles away probably _also_ got hit by the same hurricane.  Pretty good chance that your friend 100 miles away was, too.  You can improve your chances of finding an unaffected friend if you go inland rather than along the coast.  For me, near Washington, DC, this means to not consider so much Baltimore and Richmond friends -- they're also pretty near-shore so probably going to be affected same as I was -- but folks in, say, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio.

A bit of more specialized advice is: don't run in lightning storms. 

Detail: Atlantic Hurricane Season opens in US

0 The Relativity of Wrong

Recent political comment brings me back to a point I'd written about before, under the label of Successive Approximation.  The better title, unsurprisingly, is Isaac Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong. 

I first became aware of Paul Ryan's lie when my wife asked me, having mentioned nothing about context, whether a runner could conceivably mis-remember his marathon of somewhat over 4 hours as having been somewhat under 3 hours.  As has been reported in many places, and some reporters having done some experiments, the answer is no.  It is completely implausible that someone, especially someone with only one marathon, could make that mistake as an honest mistake.  Confusing a little over 4 for a little under ... maybe.  You would likely have trained for some time under 4 and that number could have stayed with you longer than your disappointment in not making your goal. 

But confusing your over-4 hours, a perfectly respectable time to cover a marathon if nothing to brag about for an open class man, for sub-3 -- a time that entitles you to some bragging (as a friend worked to earn the right to) and is achievable only with some serious training and talent -- is not an accident.

The political side of this, well, not so very interesting.  Except for the fact, perhaps, that Ryan is supposed to be a leading light for Republican number-crunching.  Number types are even less likely to make a mistake like that.  At least as a mistake. 

More interesting, and perhaps useful, to the local purpose is to look some at how to assess the relativity of wrong.  The route I took in the successive approximation post was quantitative.  Some articles have taken something like that, observing that his claimed time was about 70% of his actual time, or, conversely, that he lied by about 30%.  That's actually much too generous to his lie.  The problem with that is that if he had claimed the world record time (a bit less than 2 hours faster than he ran, as opposed to the somewhat more than 1 hour of his actual lie), it would only be scored as 50% wrong.  You can't run faster than the world record, or you'd be the record holder, which even Ryan didn't claim.  So, the most he could have lied by is about 2 hours (iirc his actual time was 4:01, and the world record back then was about 2:07, so 114 minutes).  His actual lie is about 65 minutes (taking 2:50-something as 2:56) wrong, so 57%, more than half, of the span that he could possibly have lied by.  That could be refined some by comparison against, say, the race winner's time, or the Olympic qualifying time.  But you get the idea.  And the 57% is about double what the other approach shows.  Compare how wrong something is with how wrong it could be.

But some things, and this is where I'll especially invite comments, don't lend themselves to that kind of quantification.  For instance, I'm comfortable with saying that it is more wrong to say that the earth has no greenhouse effect than it is to say that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.  But how can we assess this comparative wrongness with the error in saying that CO2 levels have not risen over the past 200 years?

So I'll invite description of approaches to assessing relative errors, preferably with examples.  Note, too, that it's best to have them be objective examples -- so which candidate is better kinds of things are not going to work.  Marathon times and the radiative properties of the earth's atmosphere aren't partisan matters.

Detail: The Relativity of Wrong

0 Setting Goals in Running

One of the things I've been doing while on hiatus (which will, barring a couple of exceptions, continue for a while yet) is getting back to my running.  (Yes, yet again I am getting back to running.)

Now that, knock wood, I am in reasonable health, it's time to be improving on that by getting active.  Running is my prime way of getting active.  Even though there's no logical or physical requirement, if I'm not running some, I also don't do other good things like lift some weights, do some rehabilitation exercises, do some core strengthening, and so on.  So it's more important for me to run than if I were otherwise more virtuous.

At the end of April, my youngest son gave me an excuse that will help me with my goal setting process.  Some people do fine with 'just do it'.  Many people, and I'm one, do better with having a goal.  My major goal is to complete that half marathon race next year the same day as my son.  I'd say with him, but with little training he ran a time that I'll probably need a couple years of steady training to reach!  So that's a nice goal itself, but how to get from here -- almost no running or other aerobic exercise in the previous 6 months -- to there -- running 13.1 miles (21.1 km) straight through?

That's where intermediate goals come in.  Athletes, I'm told, make much use of this, and it seems like a generally good idea.  A big goal a year out is the major motivator.  But it doesn't say much about the roadmap.  And without a decent roadmap, it's easy to do nothing for the first 9 months and then exclaim "Oh no, how am I going to run that race in only 3 months!?"

My plan is to break the major goal in to quarters.  3 months at a time, each ending with a goal race.  It will be 5k at the end of July, 10k at the end of October, 15k at the end of January, and the half marathon iteself at the end of April 2012.  I know that there are couch to marathon in 4 month plans, but I dislike that approach greatly.  I've heard from too many people who never ran again, or who got injured (and probably never ran again) after that approach.  Since I plan on keeping running, and am doing it for my health, such an approach is out.

The first 3 months take me from couch to 5k.  In this period, I'll be working towards running 30 minutes straight through.  Right now, I'm at run 2 minutes, walk 1 minute.  You can see my suggestion for how to choose run:walk proportions on my running progression note.  The basic idea is to start with walking for 30 minutes as a comfortable activity and then toss in some comfortable running as part of your 30 minutes.  What's happening in my body (and yours if you go through a similar program) in this phase is that the cardiovascular system is improving at pulling in oxygen and distributing it around to the muscles. 

Going from 5k to 10k involves a couple different things.  The obvious one is that I have to increase my running duration from 30 minutes to 60 minutes.  Regardless of your pace, by the way, those times are good durations to work with.  30 and 60 minutes seem to be important durations for your body's response to the training.  The other training consideration is that even though by this time my cardiovascular system will be in relatively good shape, the muscles will still be adapting to the new activity of running.  They 'forget' that running is normal in something like 6 months.  It takes 3-6 months for them to relearn how to run, rebuild to be strong enough to run easily, and so forth.  This doesn't mean that you can't run at all; but it does mean that running is still taxing the muscles and they need more time to rebuild after each workout than will be the case later.  It also suggests that this is not the time to run on particularly hilly courses, or with extreme speed (sprinting 100 meters).  They're good things to do, in principle, but first the muscles need to be trained and ready.

After these 6 months, the muscles and cardiovascular system will be in  decent shape, and ready for the demands of running good long distances and even with pretty good speed.  Comments about speed are always compared to the person.  Compared to an elite runner, I have never run with speed.  My fastest 1 mile race is far slower than an elite marathoner averages for 26.2 miles.  Still, for me that is speed.  More importantly, in terms of health and training, it is speed to my body -- challenging and requiring extra time for recovery.

From 6-9 months, I'll be working on going from 10 k to 15 k.  This will also be when the last major system in the body will be starting to finish up its adaptation to running.  That's the tendons, ligaments, and bones.  One of the major types of injury in runners, perhaps especially in the first year, is to inflame the tendons.  Even though the muscles are fine by this point, and perfectly happy to contract many, many times, and do so with speed, the tendons they're pulling are still adjusting.  Those 30-60 minute runs at moderate speed of the first 6 months aren't terribly taxing (if they are -- slow down, run shorter, or both) on the tendons and such.  But in this quarter, I'll be taking the duration up to 90 minutes, and starting to introduce some more challenging running (more significant hills, running pretty hard for 100-400 meters).  So, to permit the adjustment, my pace will be pretty relaxed on those long runs, and I won't be running as many of those hard/fast stretches as I will a year later.  Enough to encourage the body to adapt, but not enough, knock wood, to encourage injury.

The last stretch will be 9-12 months in to training -- working on going from being able to run a 15k race to being able to run a half marathon.  In some respects, this is the easiest stage.  There is a rule of thumb, which has worked for me also, that if you can run some distance, you can survive a run 1.5 times as long.  It won't be pretty, and you're somewhat asking for injury, but you can probably complete it.   What I'll be training for is to complete it in reasonable comfort and without injury.  In this phase, the body should be pretty much finished with adapting to running.  So it is here that I'll be less restrictive about how fast I run, or how hilly the routes are.  This last is particularly good, because I really like running on trails, and they tend not to be flat around here.  I'll also work on increasing my longest run of the week from 90 minutes to 120 minutes.  Maybe that'll be every other week for the runs longer than 90 minutes.  90 is really my longest 'do it every week' kind of duration.

Along the way, I'll have an eye on numbers.  (You're shocked that I look at numbers, I know.)  There are two sets, paces and equivalents.  I have a conservative goal of 2:15 (hours:minutes) for the half marathon.  That means a certain pace per mile (km).  So one thing I'll have an eye on is how far I can jog the required pace.  At the moment, with my walk:run approach, that's about 1 mile.  The other thing are the equivalents.  The farther you race, the slower you run.  When I was in shape last, I could run a 4 minute mile (pace) -- for about 100 meters.  For most people, if they're equally well-trained at both distances, they'll take 4.67 times as long to run a half marathon as a 5k.  And I have rules for other distances as well.  The positive part of this is, I don't need to run very fast by my standards to meet these numbers.  The only thing I 'need' to do is meet the 100 meter time that is equivalent to the 2:15 half marathon*, which I did last week and which did not require me to strain the muscles and tendons.  The equivalent for an optimistic time (1:45, let's say) would require serious strain, and, at this point, probably get me injured.  This way, I get to check something off -- mark off a milestone, another good thing for training plans -- without having to risk much.  Positive feedback. 

And then celebrate the year back to running by doing that half marathon race with my son.

* There's more than a little fiction involved in extrapolating from 100 meters to 21.1 km.  And that qualifier of 'equally well trained' is important.  It takes much longer to get to a given performance level for the half marathon than the 100 meters.  Still, for my own amusement, and for having things to check off for my progress, it works.  If I were already in reasonable shape, I wouldn't look at equivalents for anything shorter than 5k.

Detail: Setting Goals in Running

0 Running in the rain

It was raining, of course, this past Sunday when I went to the track for my second run since breaking my wrist while running last fall.  (First having been Thursday.)  I've previously talked about running with lightning (i.e., don't!).  But my negativity about being electrocuted* should not be taken to apply against running in the rain.  A number of my favorite runs have been in the rain.  Probably a higher fraction than in 'nice' weather.

Running in the rain becomes pleasant once you make some attitude adjustments, and perhaps do some physical preparations.  Bonuses are that you can congratulate yourself for your tremendous virtue in being out in spite of the unpleasant weather.  And if you race, it's a plus because even though you could arrange to do all your training in nice weather, you cannot ensure that all races will have nice weather.

The main attitude adjustment is one suggested by a fellow trail runner.  We were going to run on trails during moderately heavy rain, after 2 days of steady, heavy rain.  Our path was all dirt except for a stream crossing.  In other words, after all that rain, no question that we were going to be soaked, and muddy, and soaked again (by the stream).  As he said, it was time to let our inner child out to play -- splash through the puddles (which were numerous) and enjoy the mud.  I won the contest for having the mud highest on my body (up near the shoulder blades) without having fallen.

Physical preparation starts with the fact that you are going to get soaked.  So relax about that part.  During the run, get wet and don't worry about it -- assuming that you're not running with too little clothing on, and temperatures are low enough to make hypothermia an issue.  (If that sort of thing is a consideration, get out of the rain immediately.)  But a spring rain, like I had Sunday, with a warm house or car nearby, and adequate clothing ... enjoy.  The thing is, have two sets of clothes.  One for running in, and one for immediately after you finish running.

Your clothes for the running should be what will soak up the least water.  Go for your shortest socks, shorts, shirts, ... that will still be warm enough.  You'll need a little warmer clothing than usual because the rain will be cooling you down.  If you have clothes that are rain resistant, such as a waterproof nylon shell, they're good ones to go for.  Regardless of that, avoid cotton.  It will soak up water by the pound.  Rainy days are your days to appreciate technology -- go for the nylon, polyester, tech fabrics for your tops and bottoms.  Be sure, though, in reaching for your nylon shell that it does breathe, otherwise you'll boil.  (Or at least I would; I generate a _lot_ of heat when I run.  Corresponding amounts of sweat once temperatures break 20C / 70 F.) 

The longer your run, the more expert you should be in what to wear before you take up the rain running.  30 minutes in moderate temperatures doesn't require particular expertise.  3 hours in near-sleet conditions (yes, I've done that) requires a fair amount of previous practice.

After the run, it's fairly obvious what to do -- change in to dry clothes.  But apparently not so obvious that some hundreds of runners at a race of a couple thousand managed to remember it.  This was a 10k race a number of years back that I finished ahead of a lot of people that I normally didn't.  My rain training was current, and I knew I had a checked bag of dry clothing, and a towel or two, waiting for me at the finish line.  So I relaxed in the race, cruised down the highway, and actually ran my fastest 10k ever, in spite (because?) of the rain.  At the end of the run, have a sheltered area to change, and change in to those nice, dry, clothes after towelling yourself down. 

The only novelty I'd add is that you want to aim for layers of clothes so you can pull on more as you cool off from the run, and to have more layers available than you ordinarily would for the temperature.  This latter is because you will have lost more energy in the run than your normal -- all that rain will have its effect at sucking out your body heat.  As your metabolism relaxes from the during-run furnace levels, you'll welcome that extra shirt or sweats.

One thing I've never worked out is what to do for/with glasses.  I'm fortunate in being able to run without mine.  If I'm surprised by rain on a run, I just (and have to) take them off.  Anyone have good solutions here?

*Nobody will get credit for puns, or complaints about them, for/about that comment of mine.  Only punsters with low standards would count that one.

Detail: Running in the rain

0 Fitness blogging

ERV (Abbie Smith) has suggested blogging about our fitness activities, and with it being the new year and folks having made resolutions about health and fitness, it seems like a good idea.

This is distinctly aimed at the adults and parents, rather than the middle school or jr. high students I try to write to.  Of course, parents, it's an excellent thing for your kids to be active starting yesterday, if not sooner.  Doesn't make a lot of difference what it is they do.  If it's pick up soccer/football, that's fine.  Basketball is great.  Running around the yard/track/field is also just fine.  If the kids run fast for a little, then walk, then run fast again, that's great, too.  No need for the under 13s to worry about extending how long they run at one time.

But, parents, you do really need to be getting activity yourself, and you need to be more particular about what you do.  As many of the beginning runners I've coached over the years have said, they want to be running around with their children and grandchildren -- not essentially stuck in a chair for the last 30 years of their life as some of their parents had been.  The books* Younger Next Year by Chris Crowley and Henry S. Lodge, M.D. illustrate the point nicely.  Imagine a curve representing your fitness/health/capacity for doing stuff, versus your age.  It climbs rapidly in your childhood and then works more slowly towards a peak in your 20s or 30s.  What happens next is very much in your hands.  You can do no exercise, and see a steady decline from that peak towards death over the rest of your life -- spending your last 30 years perhaps below the level at which you could go for walks with your children or grandchildren.  Or you can exercise routinely and spend almost the entire rest of your life up at a high level, able to walk with your grandchildren and even run with them.  Age does have its say -- you won't be able to run the 20 minute 5k of your 20s and 30s when you're 60.  But you'll be able to go cover that 5k in comfort into your 70s.



*They have separate editions for men and for women.  My wife and I have both, but there's very little difference.  The book has both much good training advice, and, perhaps more importantly, many inspirational examples.

You do need both strength work (Crowley and Lodge recommend 2 days a week) and aerobic exercise (5 hours/week, though you do have to get there from wherever you currently are).  I have a lot to learn on doing strength work properly, some (non-running!) injuries have left me with some training issues for strength stuff.  Aerobics, I'm more comfortable about.

My preferred aerobic activity is running.  For most of the health benefits of aerobic activity, it doesn't matter which one you choose -- getting your pulse up and breaking a sweat gives you the health benefits.  One exception, which is a particular concern for women -- but men shouldn't ignore this -- is osteoporosis.  You need to do weights, or do weight-bearing aerobic exercise.  Unfortunately, that means walking or running, not biking or rowing, and absolutely not swimming.  Now the biking, rowing, swimming are all excellent aerobic exercises, so do do them if you like them.  But add in some time where your entire body weight is being supported by your own muscles, rather than the bike seat or the water.

Aside from that detail, the best aerobic exercise is the one that you like the most.  If you like it more, you'll do it more regularly.  And the benefits come from doing it regularly.  Similarly, the best time of day to do the exercise is the time of day that you'll be most regular about doing it.  I am not a morning person, so even though it would be a good idea to avoid summer afternoon heat, I run in the evenings.  A friend is very much a morning person, so does her runs at like 5 AM, which may not be the best idea when it's cold and windy.  But that's the time of day she's most likely to run.

Again regardless of which exercise you choose, the benefits come from regular training, not from racing.  A friend likens training to putting money into your health bank account.  Racing makes a withdrawal.  The longer and more difficult the race, the bigger the withdrawal.  For this reason, I'm not a fan of people starting their running career by getting off the couch and doing a marathon.  You haven't made many deposits into your health account by training regularly for very long, and then make a massive withdrawal.  In general (and I've done a marathon, and an ultramarathon myself), if you're doing a marathon, it isn't for your health.  So ... think a bit about your purpose in doing it.  I have done a couple of these long races, but not for my health.

I do like to use shorter races, anything from 50 meters to 10 miles, as goals to help me have targets for my training.  I also like to mix up the distances that I'm training for because the training is a little different for a 5k than a 10 mile.  I also mix up whether I'm looking at track, road, or trail/cross-country races.  The variety helps avoid boredom.  On the other hand, there's no need ever to go to a race.  My doctor has been running for over 20 years and never gone to a race.  And, even if you do race, there's no reason ever to do a marathon.  Get up and do something good for your health, on a regular basis, and you're set.

Most people are most regular about their training if they're meeting up with someone to do it.  Finding a friend about your level and interest in your sport is perfect.  Or, find a club devoted to the sport you'd like to get going with.  For running, that's Road Runners Club of America for nationwide listings.  Be choosy about the club you go to -- try them out and see if their attitude fits ok with yours.  I'm a member of two clubs.  The one, I go to more often when I'm in good training and thinking about racing a lot.  The other, I go to regardless.  They're less focused on race times and how fast you are.  As they describe themselves (ok, I wrote that description when I was the web master): PGRC (Prince George's Running Club) is a bunch of folks who run and walk around. We cover the range from folks just starting out slowly to some who are very fast. New people, regardless of speed or 'seriousness', are always welcome. You're also welcome to come run with us even before you join!.  If you're in the Washington, DC area, check them out on the web at PGRC.org.  Most areas have multiple clubs, so your chances of meeting up with one that suits your taste is pretty good.  And do keep in mind that it is a matter of taste.  If you like racing, go with a club that emphasizes that.  If you don't like racing, go with a club that doesn't emphasize it.  But meet your taste preference.

Abbie encourages us to write about what it is we do, but since I'm not currently doing much running, I'll kind of leave it here.  Even though not running, I'm still exercising -- moving to the bike or pool, climbing stairs at work, and walking.  The walking, I'll be taking as an opportunity to scope out more routes for me to go run on.  Then, when I've fixed up my calf issue, I'll be set for doing many more running routes, with more variety.  (And, since I've borrowed my club's measuring wheel, a good knowledge of the distances I'm covering.)

Detail: Fitness blogging

0 Racing again

Saturday I got to meet a barn owl and a red shouldered hawk.  Both were amazingly calm for all the runners who were milling around.  The owl was looking around at all the dogs, deciding whether they were snack sized or not.  (Concluded 'not', though I think a couple of dogs caused some serious calculation.) Fun to watch an owl look around.  They were out as part of the parks and planning commission entertainment for the Jug Bay 10k (and 5k, and 3k walk). 

I and a fellow club member were out for the 10k, with our plan being to run 1 minute, walk 1 minute.  This being a much flatter course than last week's cross-country, I was able to follow the plan pretty well.  Passed the mile 5 marker in 49:45, vs. last week's 8k (a touch shorter) in 54:25.  My rule of thumb for the cross country course worked out pretty well -- about 10% slower than a flat course.  Finished the 10k in 61:23, which also satisfied my check list for the conservative goal at my February 10 miler.  Needed 72 minutes to be in line with the 2:00 goal; this time also meets the more aggressive notion of a 1:45 10 mile, having needed 63 minutes for that.

Bad news, good news being that my calf/achilles acted up again.  Bad news being that it did so.  The good news being that I've now got a better line on what, exactly, is the problem child.  The major muscle in the calf area is the gastrocnemius.  That is the one I had been focusing on when doing my stretching and Alfredson exercises.  Day after the race with the calf complaining as I started to walk, I stretched (as my doctor had advised) the calf -- the gastroc.  Didn't feel any response, no complaint, no difficulty.  So finally I stretched the other muscle down there -- the soleus.  That is where the problem is (now).    I may well have just rehabilitated the gastroc earlier.  Either way, the soleus is what needs the work now.  It's a little harder to stretch, and a little harder to do the Alfredson exercise for.  Not a lot, but enough that I'd been slack about doing it.

To go back to the more typical theme of this blog, I'll observe that probably a fair number of the people running with me were scientists.  In particular, in earth sciences (lumping geology, oceanography, meteorology, glaciology, paleontology, ...) it seems very much the norm that scientists are physically active in one way or another.  Running is not the only sport.  We also have tennis players, swimmers, basketball players, bikers, ....  Team sports are harder to manage later in life, so most people are doing individual sports, even where we like team sports.  But, whatever it is, we get out and do something.  And this is true whether the person does field work (which would require a degree of physical fitness, just to carry out the job) or sits in an office (as I and my coworkers do).  It might be that scientists in other fields don't do as much sport as earth science types do.  I don't know of any research on it.  But we folks interested in the earth also seem to like to run/walk/bike/swim/... around it.

To turn back for a minute to the running ....  In terms of final race times, this 10k was very slow for me.  When walking, I averaged 16-17 minutes/mile (10-11 minutes per km), which is normal for my walking.  In running, I was around 7 minutes/mile (4.5 minutes per km).  If I were in good shape, which is the goal, I'd have run the whole 10k at about that pace.  For my current training level, with the current goal (that 10 miler, 16.1 km) run/walk is the way to get to the finish of a workout or race in best health.  Best health then means I can get out for the next workout, and the ones after that.  It's getting out consistently that is the key for training.  Given the achilles/calf issues, the next workout is tonight -- swimming.  Rest the calf and work the lungs.  The lungs (cardiovascular system) have a long way to go as well. 

Plus, one of these years I'll be doing a sprint triathlon.  My plan being: don't drown in the swim, don't fall off the bike, and then pass a lot of people in the 5k.

Detail: Racing again

0 Running in Thunderstorms, longer

Last summer I posted a short note about running in thunderstorms (don't), but just a quickie. A little more length in case someone is thinking that I'm just chicken and a Real Runner would go out anyhow. As I mentioned last time, I've run in snow, rain, sleet, well below freezing temperatures, high heat and humidity, and so on. It is only the thunderstorms that stop me.

The reasoning of the folks who have argued that it's ok to run in thunderstorms is that 'well, very few people are hit by lightning, so I'll take that tiny risk'. They're banking on arithmetic like this: 300 people per year are hit by lightning in the US, and there are 300 million people in the US, so their 'odds' are 1 in a million of being hit. Unfortunately, this is numerology rather than sound statistics.

The problem with that approach is, almost none of those 300 million are in a place where they could be hit by lightning. Most people, most of the time, are indoors or inside a car -- places you should go to avoid getting hit by lightning. So, with no effort or attention, most people could not be hit even if there were a thunderstorm in the area.

Once there is a thunderstorm in the area, almost everybody heads for safety -- and everybody should. Go inside your house (and stay away from the pipes); if you are away from homes, go to your car; if that's too far or you didn't drive, head for low ground; if you're in Flatlandia (which is where I grew up) head away from anything tall -- away from trees, telephone poles, and especially away from metal towers. These steps are easy and almost everybody takes them.

The right statistical question is "Of the people who are in a position where they could be hit, what fraction do get hit." This figure is more like 1 in 3000, rather than 1 in 1,000,000. Almost everybody does, intentionally or accidentally, take suitable precautions. Be one of them.

Since most of us who run, do so for our health, I'll point out that being hit by lightning is not good for your health. A high fraction of people hit, are killed. Of those who do not die, a high fraction have permanent health problems.

Beyond the fact that it's bad for your health and easy to take appropriate precautions, is the fact that shifting your schedule a little will let you get your run in easily. You need to give a thunderstorm about a 30 minute clearance, wait for 30 minutes after the last thunder you hear. But, an individual thunderstorm is not a long-lived event. 90 minutes is long. Moving your run 2 hours only means go out at 7 instead of 5, or vice versa. If it's very important to get the run in, then moving it a couple of hours is easy enough, and enormously safer. If you're looking at a line of thunderstorms, or a supercell, it's a longer window and you may well have to miss the run. On the other hand, such systems also produce tornadoes and large hail and have severe winds such that it'd be hard to do a workout anyhow.

For more information about thunderstorm and lightning safety:
Red Cross on Thunderstorm and lightning preparedness
NWS Lightning Safety
NWS home page -- with current watch and warning areas

Added: from Hank Roberts' September 21, 2010 comment:

Detail: Running in Thunderstorms, longer