no changes to my numbers. I believe my shortest run has been 42-43 minutes. I was surprised to move up in the standings.

Doh! I was steadily moving up the standing in this challenge and then today wham the standings put me back down at 11 runs rather than 27! Is there a bug here? I see several others I know e.g. Rolldown & SeanOBrien with lower # runs too. The training log seems to have all the data but it's not all getting xfered into the 100 challenges do-dad.
Is anyone else seeing the same thing?
Sorry to post this here, I thought there was a forum for bugs but only found the development one which is apparantly not one I can contribute to.............

I moved up in the standings almost 100 places I think, can't remember what I was before really. But I agree with the others that this is a pretty silly conclusion to make. I thought the whole point of the challenge was to do more frequency? From the original post:

"The goal of this entire thing is to lay down a solid run base by doing volume through frequency in short bursts of running."

I'm getting varied times because I'm working with a coach and 30 min runs are rare now. But when I first started I was just doing 30 min at a time because that's all I could risk without injury. I think it's a great way to prepare your body for the heavy bone and connective tissue stress that is to come from more structured and intense training.

So, without any spite or malice, I have to say Dev Paul that the point you are making with this little temporary rule change is kind of counter-productive for a lot of people. I do like that you did it, because it is interesting to see which way I moved in the standings, but I don't agree with the conclusions you are making from what happened.

---

Jason in Truckee

Ok...so you caught me in dire need of a Red Bull earlier...and quite grumpy. But I don't retract a word of it. I'd just be nicer tonight. :-)

My point is there are 557 members of this challenge...and 557 different versions of what this challenge means. The only common thread among the stories is 100/100... I know the challenge is your invention...and you have some thoughts on how to go about it...but don't minimize the efforts of the other 556 people who might dare to do the bare minimum a few times...or even for every single run. There are 557 unique reasons for buying into this lame internet-driven lash-up.

There's probably at least one challenger out there who actually IS trying to simply complete 100 thirty-minute runs...and that's a huge challenge for him or her.

I'm not ashamed to say that the absolute hardest run I've done so far in this challenge was EXACTLY 30 minutes...not a step...not a second further. It was only about 3 miles. But it followed the day after the second hardest run I've done in the challenge...a 50k. So just getting out the door and putting one foot in front of the other was a serious challenge...

And you hit on time management...well...I'm a U.S. Marine...and therefore pretty much an expert in time management. Sometimes that means fitting a ~30 minute run into 35 or 40 minutes of spare time. Case in point...tonight's 31:02 run (which won't show up until you reset the min)...was a 5 mile tempo run, 1 mile warm up, 3 miles pretty hot, and 1 mile cool down, home, shower, dress, pack kids in truck and off to PTA meeting...about 40 minutes after pulling into my driveway from work.

That's time management...and a quality workout. Yet your game with the numbers today tells me it doesn't count unless I add this morning's easy 4 miles to it for a 1:03something run.

But today wasn't a 9 mile zone 2-3 run. It was a 4 mile zone 2 run AND a 5 mile zone 4 run. Two completely different workouts.

That isn't to defend my own runs...but to point out that 557 runners have set out to do 557000 runs in 100 days. Each one of those runs is a story, whether a 30 minute struggle to make a couple of miles...an epic 4-5 hour ultra, or a weather-challenged slog uphill both ways through chest-deep snow in driving sleet.

Like Mike P, I'd love to hear some more of them...I'd love to hear from the person who's struggling just to make 30 minutes 7 times a week...whether from time constraints...or because they're relatively new at this and are seriously reaching just to do the minimum.

If someone out there wants to do exactly 100 runs of exactly 30 minutes...and that's their goal for the challenge...I salute them...and would love to hear the back story.

Me? I'm just bent on beating Tigerchik's distance total now. So gimme back my runs! Plus, I've heard treadmill runs don't really count as running...so that knocks her down to what? 7-8 runs? ;-)

"In short...stop minimizing the efforts of those in the challenge who aren't on your program. Its insulting. You can't change rules 1/2 way through a game and then cast aspersions upon those who somehow aren't measuring up to the new rules.

Way to motivate people, Dev..."


This is the best quote of the day...I know a number of people really pissed off at Dev because maybe too many people are doing the challenge and doing too many runs compared to the big D...The initial challenge was to get people doing things that they had not done before and also not hurting themselves in the process!!!

please remember the initial set up ...
This whole process was to encourage people to do things they did not think possible and not to put them down...
Stephen

Dev,

This challenge is awesome. My volume is way up: I've never had one 100 mi. month, and the way this is going, I'll probably have 3. I dropped my 1 mi. time by 40 secs, and that was in a 2 mile time trial where both miles were 40 secs slower than any mile I've run in 2 years. I also dropped 10 mins (and picked up about 30 spots) in a 7 mi. cross-country race from last year to this one. My resting heart rate is around 47, lower than last year when I trained for an ultra. All a result of many 30 min. runs in a row.

The business with wanting to see what the spreadsheet looks like if you increase the definition of "1 run" from 30 to 33 minutes is a big turd. If 30 minutes is "perfect," then there's no need to experiment. If you want to see what the spreadsheet looks like if you mess around with it, pop the data into a spreadsheet and write up a macro at home. If you want to make a point about frequency versus less-frequent higher mileage/quality runs, write a bunch of posts (as you and others have) about the pros/cons of a 100/100 type challenge.

I don't need a ton of motivation for training. I'm pretty mid-pack and this is a diversion and a way to keep in shape. Did I barely scrape by? Sure, but I figured this is like medical school: the person who graduates last in his/her class is still a doctor. Juking the stats makes the whole thing seem a little less cool.

Andrew Moss

---

__________
"At the end he was staggering into parked cars and accusing his support-van driver of trying to poison him." A description of John Dunbar in the 1st Hawaii Iron Man

"This whole process was to encourage people to do things they did not think possible and not to put them down..."

...for the record I am not putting anyone down...in fact, I just pushed another group of people up for the day....but don't worry, they'll get pushed back down :-)

Tribriguy, like you minimum runs were also mentally the most difficult that I have done this year. I think many of us are on the same page there.

I know everyone is giving reasons why they do 30, but I can bet you if the bare minimum was 20 minutes or 25 minutes or 31, there would be many runs at exactly that time frame. Its just human nature....anyway, back to the regular criteria...bottom line is you know what work you did, regardless of what the spreadsheet says....if I managed to light a fire under some of you to consider going beyond the bare minimum, then I achieved my goal, regardless of whether I got ya revved up or not...funny thing is that when I've said it in just a post here and there, it never ignited things as much as when the spreadsheet momentarily changed...so rightly or wrongly, you care what that sheet says :-) :-) :-)

Dev

You had better not mess with the spreadsheet anymore .... it seems to really stress some people out when their runs don't count :)

I think that the purpose of the challenge is not to "win" any ranking system in a challenge that is self monitored anyway. If I want to "race" Tigerchik in a run competition, let her show up at Boston and we'll see what happens on a race course (sorry to pick on you Tigerchik but you're the one people keep referring to for mileage totals on the treadmill ..... I won't race you in the water since I get lapped by my 13 year old daughter :). I also don't think that I will up my mileage to 200km/week to try and move up in the distance rankings since that would definitely hurt my training. The point of the challenge is to do some training for YOURSELF and to help you stay motivated. In spite of the fact that the results get posted on a spreadsheet for everyone to see each individual has to ask themselves whether doing a lot of 30 minute runs to pad the frequency column will be of more benefit than doing only 1 run of 45 minutes on a given day. For me personally, I'm using the "challenge" to motivate me to log some decent miles prior to running Boston so doing twice as many runs but only 30 minutes at a time is a poor use of my training time. However, if you're just trying to run more and stay injury free it is likely a good way to increase your running. Good luck to everyone and try and keep what we are doing here in perspective and don't freak out on Dev when he has a little fun with the spreadsheet for a day :)

Enough already with bashing Dev. He is just looking at the numbers in a different light for one day. Big deal. If you are really doing the challenge for your own reasons, don't get so bent just because you drop down in the spreadsheet. Nobody would get defensive about it being pointed out that that they were doing the bare minimum, unless they felt guilty or insecure about it. If you are satisfied with 30 minute runs (and you are only doing this to satisfy yourself), why would you care if you end up number 557 in the rankings? No matter how you run them, the numbers don't mean squat, unless you are happy with your training.

I think Dev should have a wacky Wednesday every week or something. Switch up the criteria just for fun, for a day. Cerainly creates some interesting discussion.

Dev,

I challenge you to find a way to run a filter that makes me 557th place. I am stoked with how my training is going, so I don't care what my ranking is (as long as it is higher than you and konaexpress).

---

*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."

Oh! I am a rabbit, it seems. It's okay, you will watch my fluffy little tail disappear :-)

I gotta dig out my running snowshoes so I can run outside.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Heyyyyy now... I run well outside too. I ran on the treadmill for most of the summer and fall, and when I did race outside, I did very well. I ran a 1:40 half marathon split in a HIM this summer after primarily all treadmill running; a 20:14 for a 5k; I won 5 of the 11 road races I ran this year and the other 6 I finished no lower than 3 rd.

Boston I admittedly might have some trouble 'cuz I don't know how to run downhill! but just because I train 99% of the time on the treadmill doesn't mean I am not good at running outside.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

OK, I have re read your post and I'd like to re emphasize that while some seem obsessed with doing 100 runs that's just one of the tiers, you can do gold 90, silver 80 and bronze 70....no need to "reach" for an arbitrary number of runs. Some might end up with higher overall volume and better quality (and more rest), by cutting a few runs here and there and going longer and actually end up with slightly less runs....however you cut it, even bronze club is 7 runs in 10 days, which is quite a bit more than running 3 per week (43 runs in 100 days)

Seriously, while there may be 556 interpretations, I did not set this up to convince people to just run 30 minute at a time. The reason for setting this up last year was to show people that it is possible to run more than the standard 3x per week that many triathletes do, simply by adding a few short runs here and there to their existing program without having to sacrifice swim and bike training.

So for a day if some of you got a bit upset, it is simply likely because, yes, I am trying to emphasize my interpretation of why this was set up (which I believe is my perogative given that I actually put some work in to set it up), and the underlying goal was to help people realize what is possible wrt to running more in the context of a triathlon program, using a few short runs here and there to help augment overall run mileage....not run short exclusively all the time with no days off...running longer is good, days off are good...some of those 30 minute runs don't achieve as much as a 60 minute run one day with a day off the next.

You may not like how I got the point across, but like I said, my primary goal is not to keep 556 strangers happy...since no one is paying for this, I don't really have an obligation for customer service, although in general I do hope people are enjoying the process. Some might hate me at the moment, cause they don't like the message or delivery mechanism, but I bet you they are thankful when they see the results later in the year.

Dev

Hey Tigerchik I'm just giving you a hard time since you're up high in the totals. I have no doubt that you can run well outside based on the totals that you're putting up in the challenge and the fact that you have done a lot of swimming. My 13 year old daughter runs close to 5:00 flat for 1500m and just around 21:00 for 5k with almost no run training at all but she is in the pool an awful lot and knows how to race because of it.

we fishies rule the universe :-)

I'd run Boston but desert dude has forbidden me from running marathons, I am too little!

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Are you still the fastest runner in the Faulds household with your 13 year old girl running 5 min flat for 1500 ????

For the record...I'm not really racing you, Tigerchik...In fact, I'm not "racing" anyone on this silly challenge. (If Murphy's Law were not on his annual hiatus, and was posting here...HIM I would race...but I'll just have to wait until AmZof '09)

I just think its awesome the amount of running you're doing when you clearly prefer the aquatic environment, Tigerchik. And I think the number of people stretching themselves here is pretty awesome.

I just think this is one of those things we should just sit back and enjoy watching what happens...what different people make of it...instead of mucking with it and trying to get people to do it in any one particular mode.

Dev gave people a canvas...he should let them paint what they want to paint.

Woa Dev, quite an uprising you've started ;)

I'm one of those who finish most of their run at 30 35ish minutes many times for time constraint (lunch hour, getting to work or coming back, and some general winter-based lazyness) ... btu even if you play with the numbers, when i took tha challenge it was just to run a 100 times in a 100 days ... to prove to my eyes I was able to do it, and to test my kneecap before the race season (i'm not elite btw, really far from that :) ). Even if you mess with the sheet, i'll know i've accomplish MY 100 runs according to my standard.

So, why the fuss, i like this challenge ... it gave me the kick in the ass i needed to run in any weather since the beginning of the challenge, so, thanks a lot for that.

( it seemed to me you could use some nice words amidst this flaming war :-) )

---

David

----
Yes, i run in AdiStar Racers all thru winter ... they are green-fluorescent ... so what !

Honestly I really don't care why he did it.

Even if it was an early April Fools day joke or if he was pissed off because he was so far down on the standings(I think this is the real reason).

To me he put a ton of work into it and can be give a break for having fun.

when the rankings changed I went from top 5 to top 400 and couldn't care less. I am probably in the top 5 for slowest runners but I have my reasons. The main one is I am FREAKING SLOW :)

Off topic, Dev don't judge a book by its cover, your two recent visitors from Roch area, in the tris the 3 of us raced in I beat them every time ;)

what happened to the average pace column? I actually liked looking at that because I felt like it painted a better overall picture when combined with distance and number of runs.
Now instead we have this "points" column which really is meaningless because it appears to be solely based on distance which we already ahve a column for. If you order everything based on distance, the order is exactly the same as when you order everything based on points.

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

Thanks.

As for swim vs run, though, as good a swimmer I am - I would choose running.

Poor Dev, I'm sure he didn't mean to cause so much trouble! LOL. And look at how cranky we all are :-)

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

I crossed over the 500k mark this morning!

6 mi - 50:25 - treadmill @ 2% incline

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Here's a dramatic interpretation of yesterday's events on the 100/100 thread, as performed by the cast of Office Space:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bXHPqj3NcI

---

-----
Over 4.5 years bike crash free.

How is the "points" calculated? I disagree with having that column, it seems to have little to do with the initial point of the challenge.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

Today's puzzle is to figure out how these new "points" are calculated. Seems to correspond to distance, mostly, but I can't figure out where the exact figure comes from, even when I switch the figures to metric.

Could it be that Dev has figured out a way to incorporate our coolness rankings into the spreadsheet? Or maybe we are now being handicapped by average number of posts per day?

---

-----
Over 4.5 years bike crash free.

Me thinks the points is in someway related to 1000km / 100 days, maybe 1000 points means you are on schedule for 1000 km?

---

------------------------------
Another IM in 2016 - hopefully..