So I tried this 30-20-10 workout that everybody’s talking about. That’s 30 seconds at recovery pace (walk or easy jog), 20 seconds at a “normal” pace, whatever that means, and a 10 second all-out sprint. You do 5 of these (in 5 minutes), recover for 2 minutes, then repeat. In the study, runners did 3 or 4 cycles in place of their regular steady-state runs, and took almost a minute off their 5K times.

I think Steve Magness got it right (to name one of many) when he noticed that the study compared this type of speedwork to a training plan with no speedwork. Speedwork makes you faster? Duh. The real question is how it stacks up to other workouts - does it give the same performance boost as more mileage of longer, harder intervals? Tabatas?

I think Amby Burfoot got it right when he compared it to Yasso 800s saying “the ‘numbers’ are just as simple.”  (The appeal of Yassos is that your time in minutes for 800-meter intervals (half a mile) is supposed to predict your marathon time in hours.)

So I ran some 30-20-10s myself.  I’m recovering from a marathon and wanted a workout I could do by feel - especially since I knew I’d be pushing a jogging stroller, which slows you down, and I already feel slow enough. Also, I love short sprints! I’ll do 800s but I want to kill myself by the end. 15-second hill sprints have long been one of my favorite workouts.

My first realization: these are really easy to keep track of on your watch. You start at 0:00, start jogging at 0:30, then break into your sprint at 0:50. When the minute rolls over, the left-hand side of your watch tells you how many sprints you’ve done. (4:17? I’ve done 4, just one left in the cycle!)

This workout also feels easy. The 30-seconds of recovery pace feels like nothing, as it should; bumping it up to a jog is no biggie, and the last 10 seconds is about 8 seconds of “Yee-haw!” and 2 seconds of “Is it time yet? Yeah, it’s time.”

Compare this to a routine of 800s: 3:50 of “thank god I don’t have to run yet,” 10 seconds of “aw crap I have to run now,” and 4 minutes of “I want to die.”

The runners in the study started with 3 x 5 minutes of the protocol, working up to 4. I started out today intending to do 3, but at the end of 3 it barely felt like I’d done anything. So I did a 4th, and still felt fresh. My last thought as I was leaving the “track” (more about that in a second) was that next time I should do these uphill so I can get a real workout.

That said, I know to respect my workouts. I’ll update tomorrow with a “soreness report” in case I’ve spoken too soon.

And that “track” I spoke of? I spend very little time at those quarter-mile ovals you see behind schools. Instead, I go to the little loop of road by the swimming pool at North Park. It’s a peanut-shaped 1.4 miles, with a shortcut that makes a loop that’s 1 mile even. (I also happen to know landmarks to divide the mile into two halves.) There are some rolling hills. It’s green, partly shaded, and the changes of scenery include baseball fields, soccer fields, woods, and a steady parade of joggers and dog walkers. Way nicer than any track.

Start

Drive to the swimming pool, but as you enter, bear right at the sign for the Pie Traynor ball fields. Park there. The trailhead is across the road near the Harmar pavilion. A large, hard-to-read sign has some trail maps, and the following inscription:

Perimeter trail: Approximately 8 miles, circles the park, this trail is not blazed. Follow the Rachel Carson trail west. When the Rachel Carson blazes run out you are on the North Ridge trail. Take North Ridge west to intersection of Pearce Mill and Kummer. Start down Kummer Rd. The trail runs off to the right and parallel to Kummer Rd (loops away from Kummer between the skating rink and golf course). “Kummer Trail” southeast to intersection of Kummer and Ingomar Rd. Straight across Ingomar, up the hill to Lehigh and Ligonier pavilions. Take trail west until it crosses Old Ingomar Rd, through the trail tunnel under Babcock Blvd. West up the hill to Forest Glen pavilion. Take trail there up the hill to junction with Rachel Carson. Rachel Carson east to trail head.

I don’t know how old the description is, but some details seem to have changed. For example, there is no Lehigh or Ligonier pavilion that I can find, but there is a Ledgewood in about that spot. What follows is my attempt to follow the perimeter trail; if it’s not the exact trail described here, it’s very close. I count 9 miles.

After walking straight down the trail a few steps, you’ll be able to turn left onto the Rachel Carson trail.

Rachel Carson trail (yellow blazes)

Follow the trail through the woods; you’re heading west, and this is the westernmost mile of the trail. (If you went the other way, you would have 34ish miles of trail ending at Harrison Hills park.)

There is a tricky spot where the trail comes out of the woods into a grassy area near a busy road. Bear left, over some planks laid over a ditch, onto the side road. Go straight, crossing the busy road (which is Wildwood Rd), past the 7-11, into the “Mansions of North Park.” Then you’ll see blazes again.

The other tricky spot: about a quarter mile later, when the trail comes back out onto Babcock Blvd, go right along the road, then left onto Pearce Mill, then right onto the boat launch ramp. There is water at the ramp, and (as of spring 2012) a porta-potty at the western terminus of the trail, at the parking lot near the Baker pavilion.

North Ridge trail (red blazes)

This trail is easy to follow. It goes uphill for about 2.5 miles, then downhill for the last three-quarters of a mile.

Unmarked trail along Kummer Rd

When you leave the red trail, go straight (this is Brown Rd; you cross Pearce Mill.) Kummer veers off to the left, but keep going around a large grassy triangle in the road. Then take the unmarked trail in the grass to your left. Kummer Rd will be to your left, and you’re heading south. At this point, you’re halfway around the park.

Follow this trail as best you can. Eventually you come to a bathtub in the trail, and shortly afterward, the trail comes to a T with a small stone wall in front of you. Turn left. You’ll come out on McKinney road; turn left along this road and soon you’ll be at the Pigeon shelter. (there is parking here, but no water or porta-potties).

Orange/yellow trail

Turn right down Kummer Road (golf course is on your left). Just after Gass Road, a trail parallels Kummer on the right. It’s marked with orange blazes with yellow dots.

When this comes out into a meadow with some horse jumps, turn right. You’ll soon be on a dirt/gravel road behind the Ranch House. When you come out to the road (Kummer Road, again), DON’T cross to the plain orange blazes (this will circle around the golf course back to Pigeon, which is a nice 5-mile loop for another time) but rather go right along Kummer to Beauty Drive.

Orange/green trail

Go up Beauty Drive to your right;  after you pass a house or two, you’ll see the orange blazes with green dots to your left. This trail parallels Kummer Rd for a short distance. It comes out within sight of the Kummer/Ingomar intersection.

Ledgewood shelter / Purple trail 

You’re on Kummer Road again. Follow it to the intersection with Ingomar, crossing at the “horse crossing” sign (or at the crosswalk, close enough). Go uphill to the Ledgewood shelter. (Porta-potty here.) Pick up a trail with plain lavender blazes. (Purple/black is a less direct, alternate route).

White/green trail

Where the purple trail ends, a white-blazed trail with green dots picks up. Follow this through the underpass under Babcock Blvd; just after the tunnel are some playgrounds and pavilions; find water and porta-potties here. Cross the road, following the trail to the left, until it rejoins the Rachel Carson trail (yellow blazes).

Yellow trail again

White/green rejoins yellow at that spot near the 7-11. Follow it uphill and back to the trailhead where you started.

Some more details…

Length: 8.9 miles
Elevation change: 1,280 feet (ie, you climb that much, but it’s a loop so what goes up must come down)

• Instead of starting at the trailhead, go to the other end of the parking lot, to the soccer field, and follow the white-blazed trail that circles around to the described trailhead - about 2.5 miles.
• At the boat ramp (end of yellow trail, start of red) bear left up the hill to follow the red/blue trail instead of the solid red. Mileage: maybe 2 miles extra? (This trail parallels the red, but folds back on itself several times)
• At the Pigeon shelter, turn left instead of right to find the solid orange trail that goes clockwise around the golf course. Where it comes out on the road, turn left to find Beauty drive and the orange/green trail. Mileage: maybe 3 miles extra?
• At the Ledgewood shelter, follow the purple/black trail instead of the solid purple. Mileage: maybe 1 mile extra?
• Unmarked trail somewhere between purple and the swimming pool. Mileage: ???
• At the end, follow the yellow blazes for as long as you like - this is the Rachel Carson trail, and goes for 34 more miles.

You know what was actually easy and cost-effective to make, and super useful? Receiving blankets.

1. Wait till the “Snuggle Flannel” goes on sale at JoAnn’s (it’s printed on one side, white on the other, durable, soft, and $2.99, sometimes less, on a good day). The solid color flannel works fine too.

2. Get a 1-yard cut of it - this makes a 36″ x 42″ blanket. You could trim it to 36″x36″ (this is OK, but we liked the bigger size). You could also buy 42 inches or so, for a bigger square blanket. Either way, when you get it home, trim all 4 edges of your rectangle so they are neat and straight and easy to work with.

The rest of the process will be over in minutes:

3. With the wrong (plain) side facing you, fold over the edge by 1/4″. Sew it with a wide zigzag stitch, so that one side of the stitch is in the double layer, and the other side in the single layer.

The best thing about marathon training: lots of mileage means I got sick of the roads really fast. There are some AMAZING trails in North Park. I’m still exploring. But I’ve found some good maps online, and I have some blurry xeroxes and some photos of trailhead signs, and most valuable of all, I’ve run some of the trails with a GPS. If I get lost, it’s a bonus: I cover/map more trails!

What follows is just for starters. There’s more where this came from.

Online maps and info:

• Really nice, 1-page color maps of blazed trails (PDF) - very accurate and recent. Southern (swimming pool/pie traynor) and Central (lake and surrounding ridges) are finished. Northern (Latodami) isn’t up yet, but should appear someday at the county park maps page.
• This whole-park map (PDF) shows all trails as red dashes (no blazes marked)
• This Google map shows an “outer loop” linking several major trails
• PTAG maintains the trails and has some info, including a plan for future development
• The Marshall Mangler race maps use the Central map, with a route marked to make a loop on the orange trail (golf course) connected to a loop on the red trail (north ridge).

Offline maps:

• Trails around Latodami nature center (northern section of the park) - this map is available as part of a 2-page, legal-size xerox at the Park Office. The other page is an overall sketch of the park with a few main trails marked. If you get that page (I’ll scan it here soon) note that the North Ridge trail (red blazes in real life) is NOT the same as the Rachel Carson trail; it’s mislabeled on the xerox.

Some hikes and trail runs worth taking (will update this soon with more routes, and GPS maps)

• North Ridge trail, red blazes: Start at the boat launch ramp at the corner of Babcock and Pearce Mill (next to the Spillway parking lot). You’ll be running uphill for the first 2.5 miles. Follow the red blazes with black dots, which joins with plain red blazes after a half mile or so. Follow the plain red blazes until you’re ready to turn around. Right after the tiny switchbacks makes for a 5-mile out-and back, or follow it all the way down to Pearce Mill by the skating rink for 6.5 miles total
• Golf Course: Park at Pigeon shelter on McKinney Road just north of the golf course. Turn left down the road (east) and pick up the orange blaze trail. Follow this most of the way around the golf course until it runs out where it hits a road; cross the road and take a wide dirt path past a brown wooden building and some horse arenas. When you hit woods again, look for the orange blazes with yellow dots, and follow this trail until it runs out. You’re on Kummer Road. Keep going (north) to return to the Pigeon shelter.

Earlier this year I knew next-to-nothing about concussions and had never heard of concussion testing. Bottom line: a concussion is a nearly invisible brain injury that can cause trouble down the line if you get another one before the first is fully healed.

Coaches and players in many sports, famously including the NFL, are beginning to take concussion recovery seriously. Tests can help tell if an injured athlete’s brain function is truly back to normal so they can safely return to play. My league, Steel City, is possibly the first roller derby league to formally address this issue.

BethSkw:        Next up: Get the Numbers Right: a workshop on reporting statistics http://bit.ly/bXrIH9 #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        Are you in the right? Get the Numbers Right session about to start. #sciwri10

BethSkw:        Some stuff from this session will be posted on www.stephenornes.com #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO on fact checking: marks up article, makes a report. Pet peeve: even good writers have hard time w odds ratios #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO: OR=odds ratio 2.38 does NOT mean 138% inc risk. Instead: 2.38x the odds. Rel risk intuitive, this not. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        More on odds ratio vs. relative risk (my googling) http://bit.ly/aVA6V2 #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:       rel btw OR and a % risk not straightforward to calculate - ask a researcher (& hope they know what they’re doing) - Gelman #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO www.stats.org “are you a journalist?” link - ask stats questions #sciwri10 #stats

daviddespain:        Are you a sci jorno who wants to ask a question of a statistician? http://www.stats.org/ #sciwri10

BethSkw:        Here’s the direct link for stats help for journalists: http://stats.org/journalist.htm #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        Odds ratios don’t translate into percents. See stats.org to get help from a stats expert #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO: almost impossible to find absolute risk. Rel risk compares eg smokers to nonsmokers but does not tell ACTUAL risk. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO: when RR=1, no difference. RR=2 means 100% increase in one group vs. the other #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO: Comparing events with 80% and 67% prob - odds ratio is 2 but 80% is not twice the risk of 67%! #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO: When in doubt, ask the investigator AND THEN ask an independent statistician, or stats.org. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        SO: Befriend a statistician. When you talk to one, ask if you can come back with Qs later, many will say yes. #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        Relative risk is more accurate, double check your stats! #sciwri10 make friends with a statistician

BethSkw:        Andrew Gelman: statisticians are not alike, hate when reporters ask one about sth outside their field. Ask their bg. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        2000 Bush v. Gore case used stats expert who was smart guy, not qualified in the area, confident enough to show up anyway #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        AG: Statisticians often like to be helpful, we want to see our names in the paper! #sciwri10 #stats

jamesian:        Beware trusting experts in stats who lack specific credibility - Gelman of Columbia #sciwri10

BethSkw:        AG: Silly studies like that influence how ppl think about sex stereotypes, meaning theyre important to discuss #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        AG: look at studies in context, not isolation, what did you expect to see? #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        AG: 51% of babies are boys, more boy babies die, at age 20 the numbers are 50/50 #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:       AG: extr poverty/famine: sex ratio effects as high as 3%. Smaller effects (race, age, season) < 1%. ergo expect beauty <1% #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        AG: some studies “more vampirical than empirical - unable to be killed by mere evidence” - Freese 2007 http://bit.ly/9g4zVM #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        AG: sex ratio studies can be more ‘vampirical’ than ‘empirical’ unable to be killed by mere evidence #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        AG compares results to People’s Most Beautiful lists. Can’t find small effects with this sample size #sciwri10 #stats

Deb_acle:        RT @BethSkw: More on odds ratio vs. relative risk (my googling) http://bit.ly/aVA6V2 #sciwri10 #stats

jamesian:        Scientific method is “machine for exaggeration” says Gelman #sciwri10

DanielleVenton:        AG: be suspicious when something is 10 - 100x larger than expected effects. #sciwri10 #stats

rachelsklar:        Pls blog it!!! RT @arikia: This stats session is amaaazing. @fivethirtyeight you’ve turned me into a total stats head… #sciwri10

BethSkw:        AG: in peer reviewed lit, there is a bias toward overestimating effects. Need to know topic bg to spot red flags #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        AG: most effects reported in peer-reviewed lit are overestimated. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        AG: many “politically incorrect” studies essentially random results b/c no statistical power #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        Next speaker: Tom Siegfried of Science News (prev article of his here: http://bit.ly/d5CjYw) #sciwri10 #stats

davemosher:       Andrew Gelman, statistician at Columbia: Journal system = little black box of overestimation (in regards to reporting sig results) #sciwri10

BethSkw:        TS: stat significant means 95% prob effect isn’t chance? NO! doesn’t even mean that it’s “significant”. #sciwri10 #stats

arikia:       The woman sitting next to me in the stats talk just yelped when Tom Siegfried called the commonly accepted def of stat sig wrong #sciwri10

arikia:        ”Evidence that you’ve seen something unlikely is not evidence that the opposite is true.” #sciwri10

davemosher:        ”Evidence that I don’t own the house is not evidence that the house owns me.” -Tim Siegfried #sciwri10

BethSkw:        TS: Stat significant = less than 5% chance of seeing effect of this magnitude if there really is no effect. #sciwri10 #stats

arikia:        This session is obviously ruffling some feathers but this is stats 101 stuff. Excellently delivered, I might add. #sciwri10

BethSkw:        Wish I could tell the Tom Siegfried’s swimming-in-winter example in 140 chars. Explained the idea nicely! #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        RT @arikia: This session is obviously ruffling some feathers but this is stats 101 stuff. Excellently delivered, I might add. #sciwri10

BethSkw:        TS: If result isn’t statistically significant, can say “did not establish a link” or “…but could have been due to chance” #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        TS: huge confidence interval means result is uncertain. Ex phrasing: “in the range of about 10 to 40%” #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        TS: reporting elevated risk? State the comparison point. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        TS: When reporting Relative Risk, say relative to WHAT. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        TS: Reader may not know how to interpret simple math like “50% increase” so think carefully when describing numbers #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        TS: Red flags for wrong results: 1st report, hot field, contrary to prev belief (why say prev belief wrong?) #sciwri10 #stats

daviddespain:        Recipe for wrong science news: 1 first report of something 2 advance in hot research field 3 contrary to previous belief #sciwri10

BethSkw:        TS: recipe for wrong science == recipe for hot news. So have to be careful. #sciwri10 #stats

bohemianone:        RT @BethSkw: TS: Reader may not know how to interpret simple math like “50% increase” so think carefully when describing numbers #sciwri10 #stats

arikia:        The recipe for bad science is the same recipe as what’s often sought after for science news. #sciwri10

BethSkw:        Gelman: Maybe drop idea of effect vs. no effect - effect is rarely zero, Q is how much. #sciwri10 #stats

arikia:        There are situations where single events are newsworthy, eg: if you find a talking dog… #sciwri10

BethSkw:        Q: single case study newsworthy? TS: Can be. Stats are just to sort out complicated situations. #sciwri10 #stats

daviddespain:        Forgotten frequently (or conveniently) by reporters RT @BethSkw: TS: When reporting Relative Risk, say relative to WHAT. #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        Andrew Gelman’s blog: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/ #sciwri10 #stats

TomLevenson:        3 flags for bad science/science news-first report of something/in a hot field/contrary to prior belief. Amen and amen. #sciwri10

marynmck:        RT @arikia: The recipe for bad science is the same recipe as what’s often sought after for science news. #sciwri10

BethSkw:        AG: psychologists have research on how to communicate risk/probability. TS: “risk communication” field #sciwri10 #stats

BethSkw:        A few risk communication links: http://bit.ly/ak4som http://bit.ly/bFjqh4 http://bit.ly/bNsm02 #sciwri10 #stats

DanielleVenton:        Get comfortable with the numbers in the study before you trust them. No snap judgments. #sciwri10 #stats

arikia:        Untapped resource on finding statistical flaws in research: ppl who don’t like the people who published it. #sciwri10

DanielleVenton:        Stats resource: other researchers who don’t like the author, good for explaining study flaws. #sciwri10 #stats

TomLevenson:        @caribbeanscot: three reasons to question new science (news): it’s a first report in a hot field contradicting prior belief. #sciwri10

maggiekb1:        RT @arikia: “Evidence that you’ve seen something unlikely is not evidence that the opposite is true.” #sciwri10

BethSkw:        SO: OR=odds ratio 2.38 does NOT mean 138% inc risk. Instead: 2.38x the odds. Rel risk intuitive, this not. #sciwri10 #stats

When I tell people, they usually have questions like “What is your novel about?” - which surprises me, because their question really should be “Why?!?”

NaNo really takes over November. Thanksgiving puts a wrench in the works but I try to be far enough along by then that I’m not worried about my word count. I spend between 1 and 2 hours per day on it, not counting the time I spend planning in October. Yes, I do this on top of my regular job, child care duties, roller derby practices, and so on.

I do it because it’s an amazing productivity exercise: sit down, pound out the words, and be done for the day. I track my words to date, words per hour, how far ahead I am, my projected total by the end of the month, and so on.

When my “real job” is made of writing that matters and has to be done carefully, it’s easy to procrastinate, to work slowly, to pretend to myself that I’m already working at top speed and it’s just that the work is so tough. I might struggle all week in my day job to squeeze out the number of words I get in two hours of noveling. It’s a real productivity wake-up call.

I also do it so I can surprise myself with my creativity. The thing that got me to try my first NaNo was Chris Baty’s description (in the book “No Plot, No Problem”) of how his characters, once half-written, took on lives of their own and turned the jumble of words into a story:

That’s the beauty of novel writing. A panoply of strange characters, spread out over cities or continents, will somehow end up banding together midbook to construct your plot. You probably won’t see how this will happen early in the writing process, and you shouldn’t worry about it yet. Your role as a writer in Week One is just to continue to wave all of these players down onto the field, and then write like hell to keep up with them.

There’s another benefit: Every year when I plan my novel in late October, I read up on characters and plot and pacing and conflicts and foreshadowing and climaxes and set pieces. Ever since that first cold November night I sat down with a story being born, I’ve noticed these things in the media I consume, and even what I write. Any sort of writing has traits in common with storytelling, and when a page-turning couple of pages produces itself out of my mountain of first-draft drivel (which happens surprisingly often in November!), I say Aha! This is how you make something worth reading!

Also, I have a thing for crazy projects. Like joining a roller derby team, winning a gold medal in the Knitting Olympics, taking trapeze lessons (only did it once but wish I could go again), training to swim a mile while 5 months pregnant (only missed the race because a family funeral was the same day), you get the idea. It’s great to have a project to devote yourself to, then walk away from with a sense of accomplishment. “I’ll never do anything like that again,” you say. “Until next year.”

November 2008: wrote my first novel
November 2009: wrote my second novel while caring for a newborn babe
November 2010: writing my third novel on a typewriter (while caring for a 1-year-old). Not sure how I’m gonna top that for 2011, but I’ll try.

I liked his point that genetic privacy is overrated anyway, when you shed hair and skin everywhere you go.

A similar, more ambitious effort is the Personal Genome Project, which aims to build a repository of 100,000 individuals who have decided to share their data. (They’re up to 10 so far. [Update: now it’s 1,000]) That project’s privacy statement includes the reverse idea: that if someone has your genetic data, it’s not so hard for them to know who you are.

We question the long-held belief that research endeavors involving human genome sequencing can guarantee, in perpetuity, the confidentiality or anonymity of the information revealed from a personal genome sequence. For example, it is becoming easier to glean personally indentifiable knowledge from DNA sequences, including hair and eye color, height, and facial features. Protecting the identity of indviduals is particularly difficult while the number of personal genome sequences existing in the world is small.

Anyhow, I’m reading this as I sit at home watching the twitter feed (#bgt2010) for Beyond the Genome, a conference in Boston about “the true gene count, human evolution, and disease genomics.” Sounds like fun!