Goals

We make goals for ourselves to meet deadlines, to motivate ourselves into action, to test what we can achieve (of course, list is not completely exclusive.) It’s great to make goals; goal-setting has helped me accomplish a bunch of things which I never thought I was capable of doing. Before April of last year, I couldn’t have imagined running more than 4 miles in a session, but I decided to set a goal of running a half-marathon by the end of 2010; by October 2010 I had achieved that goal. When I started freshman year of college, I didn’t think I could possibly become decent as a quizbowl player and editor… but setting a goal of working on a couple of tournaments every year (my repeated statements about quitting quizbowl notwithstanding) I am happy about how I evolved over those four years.

Of course, goal setting is not a guaranteed means of achieving success. Sometimes the target may stop being relevant; on other occasions, someone else who has been working on the same goal may end up achieving it before you, basically nullifying all your hard work. However, there is one particular reason which is worse than any of the ones above – the devolution of the goal into increasingly myopic sub-goals and the associated  loss of awareness of big-picture thinking that motivates the goal setting. What follows is an illustration:

In June I signed up to run the Western Wisconsin Half Marathon. I reasoned that since I was able to run a halfie in 2:02 last year, that I should be able to finish it under 2:00 this year. I tried running at a faster pace in June and July, but it wasn’t working out well. On a couple of days I could tell my knees were hurting, but I figured I could overcome the pain with more running or something. For a while I ran with the hope of achieving that 2:00 mark.

In retrospect, had I pushed myself to run at the ~9 minute mile pace today, I would certainly have had a detrimental experience. I’d probably have started cramping at mile 10 and just cried my way through the remainder of the run. None of that happened, though. I think I kept a pretty constant ~11 min mile pace throughout the first 8-9 miles, slowed down a bit (probably 12 min miles) for the remainder, and ran the last .2 miles much faster in accordance with the “strong finish” school of running. Over the last couple of days, as I was mentally preparing myself for this run, I knew that the adrenaline (and the glycogen reserves) would compensate for the lack of extensive training, but it became increasingly clear to me that I wouldn’t ever enjoy running if I hurt myself trying to make that 2:00 mark. Furthermore, it was abundantly clear that the two runs were not the same (trail run vs. road run, 100 people vs. 400 people) and that it would be foolish to try and set a goal time due to the lack of familiarity with such conditions.

The mere passage of such an endurance test was what I wanted, and I think I did it well. I finished the run in 2:31 ish, somewhat exhausted, but with a happy feeling of accomplishment.

So, moral of the story, I guess – don’t forget the big picture in what you want to accomplish and don’t let your sub-goals get you carried away.

Should I be bothered by this? – Parte Uno

I work out about 5-6 times a week. In the last month or so, I’ve settled into a routine of weight training 2-3 times, and something aerobic (exercise bike, elliptical, running, etc) all other times. The results are pretty good. I definitely feel stronger, and I think I have improved my stamina/endurance.

There are various reasons why I started putting in more physical activity into my routine. Back in April, the spring weather felt great and I wanted to enjoy it, so I ran. I was slightly overweight back then, and I knew I had the possibility of gaining weight in the long run, so I wanted to control that. I’m glad to see that the efforts have been paying off.

There’s something about this whole thing that bothers me, though. The fact that I’m working out necessitates that I consume more food. If I was consuming 2400 calories/day last April (when I started running and stuff) I now have to consume 500-800 more per day. If I don’t do that, I feel tired and generally listless all day – you know how it goes. So, effectively, that means I am consuming approx. 3000 cals or more/day.

500-800 cals/day translates to 1 whole meal per day. What if that meal went to a starving person, who would certainly have a higher marginal utility of consumption than I would? Is my 20+% increase in calorific intake somehow adding fuel to the raging fire of higher commodity prices? Why do I matter more in determining my appropriate level of utility than a starving child in Minneapolis (let alone India/Africa/etc.)?

Here are some stylized facts that I should take in consideration as I analyze this issue:

1. A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie. A calorie from fat is not the same as a calorie from carbs. 100 calories from eating a bag of potato chips is not the same as a calorie from consuming a slice of bread. There are differential levels of energy/processing which go into producing/transporting those items. The “waste” (read: unused sources of calories/nutrition) generated when producing the two products are different. The effects various foods have on health are different.
2. I know I can die in the next moment, but I also know that medical advances may help me live longer and more comfortably than did my grandparents or even my parents. I may not be able to predict exactly how long I live, but along the course of my future, I will be able to predict with more and more accuracy how long I’m going to live.
3. Working out adds a lot of non-food consumption to my consumption bundle, too. Working out implies new working out shorts/shirts/shoes every 8-12 months, some equipment, water, etc. Thus, overall, the relative changes in the consumption bundle are fairly dramatic. If everyone resident of an OECD nation worked out a fair bit, then we might see a lot of flux in the aggregate consumption variables.

I don’t have the time to analyze this right now. Just some thoughts. I will write more about it when I have the time.

Speed is a function of stride length and stride rate

Lesson learnt: When performing an activity, decompose it into the various steps and actions necessary and understand the meaning of all the variables that affect the activity.

I ran today. The act wasn’t unusual. I have been running about 4 days a week, 14-15 miles a week. However, for whatever reason, my run felt a little weird. It felt much better to be running today the loop today than it had felt on most previous days. To be sure, I was breathing a little harder and going faster  than I usually do. The cause was confounding me. I had just consumed about 350 mLs of water, so if anything, I should have felt more uncomfortable running faster. I also have a mental beat (a usual 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 rhythm) that I run to, and it was pretty much invariant. Identifying changes is rhythm comes easy to me thanks to my Tabla background, and my feet were following this beat, eliminating the possibility that I was taking more steps in the same amount of time.

Then it occurred to me: I was taking longer strides. As simple as that. Speed definitely varies directly with stride length and stride rate. Fixing the stride rate (which I was doing today) and increasing the stride length (which I was also doing) definitely increases speed.

My new running goal should be improving stride length. It takes a lot more effort to swing the legs wider, and the impact of the legs hitting the ground is also larger. Finding the optimal stride length will be the key priority. Running on grass might be the best option, since it seems to me that the impact is relatively low. However, papers such as this one suggest that running on grass might actually have a higher impact since one cannot predict the level of impact of the next step while running on grass.

Anyway, decision will be made, performance will be (mentally) evaluated by moi, and results will be presented in the form of another long blog post.

Enjoy.

–Gautam

Congratulations to Gebre Gebremariam

For winning the NYC Marathon:

Gebremariam Wins New York in Marathon Debut

Gebre Gebremariam once studied marathon world-record holder Haile Gebrselassie in school, in a class that also featured another Ethiopian marathon legend, Abeba Bikila.

He earned an A.

Gebremariam started running himself at age 18 in Ethiopia, and he has won at every distance and on every kind course since until he made his marathon debut Sunday in relative obscurity in the New York City Marathon.
…
Running effortlessly and alone in the final two miles, Gebremariam, 26, cruised to a victory in 2 hours 8 minutes 14 seconds. His only competition late in the race, Emmanuel Mutai of Kenya, had dropped back in the 25th mile in Central Park with pain in his leg. Gebremariam looked back several times, then stormed ahead to the tape.

A solid achievement!