Three meet records fell at Saturday's MSTCA Girls Invitational meet at the RLTAC, and two performances were US#1 for the 2011 indoor season.
Arlington junior Rebecca Robinson improved her own meet record in the 300, running 39.27. Robinson also won the 55 dash and was named the meet's outstanding overall performer.
Lincoln-Sudbury senior Andrea Keklak demolished the field in the 600, running a meet record and US#1 time of 1:32.95.
Newton North sophomore Carla Forbes set a personal best, meet record, and US#3 mark in the long jump, hitting 19-1 to win the event by a foot and a half. Forbes also finished second to Robinson in the dash (7.36) and competed on North's second-place 4x200 team (1:47.37).
North's Kayla Wong had a great day, finishing 3rd in the hurdles (8.47) and 6th in the long jump (17-1.5). Amy Ren was busy, high jumping 5-0, long jumping 15-11.5, and dipping under 9.00 in the hurdles (8.97, for 9th). Emily Hutchinson and Lucia Grigoli both cleared 5-2 in the high jump. Margo Gillis ran a season's best time of 1:38.57 to finish 10th in the 600., and Meghan Bellerose ran a PR 1:41.21 in the same event. Maggie and Evie Heffernan ran 5:33 and 5:35 in the mile, respectively, and Devika Banerjee ran a PR 12:15.9 in the 2M.
North's 4x800 relay team (9:53.05) ran a season's best time to finish a close 6th, less than 2.5 seconds behind the winning Burlington team.
MSTCA Girls Invitational Meet Results
January 30, 2011
January 28, 2011
I Can Stop Any Time I Want...
When the mainstream media writes about running, there are a few topics that seem to come up again and again.
One reliable "controversy" is whether the human species has bumped up against its ultimate performance ceiling. I noticed there was an article musing about exactly that question in the Sunday Boston Globe Ideas Section ("Peaked Performance"). I didn't bother writing about it because a) I've written about it before, and b) there was nothing really new in the article. Of course what happens is that some researcher releases a study showing that human kind has reached some sort of bio-evolutionary limit. The research includes a statistical analysis of the progress of track and field records. It's all very convincing, and yet deep down we all know that somewhere among the world's seven billion people, in some remote village or town, there is a young girl or young boy who will not have read the research and is preparing to redefine what we consider possible.
Another topic that's always good for several column inches in a running magazine is the idea that if we would only eat/train/dress like our ancient ancestors we would cure all the ills brought about by our modern and decadent lifestyles. I don't usually pay any attention to this sort of thing (look how long I ignored barefoot running...) but I respect Runner's World columnist Amby Burfoot's writings, so I was surprised to see his recent post on the "Paleo Diet" (Updating the Paleo Diet). The Paleo Diet suggests that we should eat the way our paleolithic forbears did. That's cool -- the modern diet is certainly problematic -- but the Paleo-enthusiasts lose me with their assertion that we took a nutritional wrong turn when we learned to harvest wheat.
Anyway, I mentioned those two articles to make the point that the topics seem to be recycled from year-to-year precisely because there's no way of settling the questions they raise. They are the journalistic equivalent of arguing that Bob Feller was a better pitcher than Pedro Martinez.
Anyway, I felt like I hit the trifecta when I noticed an article in Slate Magazine that muses on the similarities between exercise and drug use ("Gym Rats and Dope Fiends"). I figured it would be another alarmist piece about how running is an addiction, and how runners are risking their health, their relationships, and their livelihoods because they can't give up their daily fix of mileage. I'd read that kind of thing before, and I was prepared to be dismissive.
But instead, I found that the author, Daniel Engber, had written a very thoughtful and (I thought) well-informed piece about the complex interaction between exercise and substance addiction.
Engber begins by establishing that exercise has been shown to make rats and people less susceptible to the effects of addictive substances like morphine, heroine, nicotine, etc. He then asserts that science has not established why this is the case. One possibility is that exercise induces some of the same effects of those substances in the brain. I learned, for example, that the word "endorphin" -- used to decribe the naturally occurring chemicals responsible for the pleasant sensations we associate with exercise -- is a shorthand for "endogenous morphine." Who knew?
Engber describes how the last several decades have seen an evolution of the idea of behavior as being shaped by the pleasure centers in the brain. He associates this line of thinking with the relatively recent identification of exercise "addiction," defined as an unhealthy compulsion to exercise to the detriment of other needs.
But Engber is careful not to exploit the opportunity to make simplistic comparisons between (or jokes about) running and real drug habits. As he writes...
"...exercise is not like heroin, at least not in the sense of fundamental psychopathology. And it's best to avoid the semantic controversy over whether any behavior --weightlifting, shopping, eating, f***ing, playing World of Warcraft -- should properly be termed an "addiction," or a "dependence," or even appear at all, in the official manual of psychiatric diagnoses."
On a personal level, I've basically been asking myself for nearly thirty years the question of whether my long habit of running is a problem that rises to the level of an addiction, obsession, or compulsion. Over and over again, I've reached the conclusion that it is not. As evidence, I say that every time I've stopped running for any length of time, it was actually pretty hard to start up again. What self-respecting addiction makes it really difficult to relapse? Furthermore, when I've stopped, I've felt pretty good -- not depressed, not unproductive. My time off has been useful.
So why do any of us do it so compulsively if we're not actually compelled? Well that's a complicated question but I think it comes down to weighing a life with or without running and deciding -- over-and-over again -- that running adds something not easily found in other things we do. It doesn't make sense to call this an addiction, any more than it would make sense to call writing this blog an addiction.
I mean, I'd sure have a lot more free time if I didn't run and didn't write -- but in the end, we do the things we do for self-satisfaction, to fulfill a need, as Coach Blackburn would say.
So whatever the similarities, the need to be satisfied with ourselves stands apart from the need to serve the biochemical cravings of a substance addition. Endorphins are a nice perk of running, but they aren't the reason I do it.
One reliable "controversy" is whether the human species has bumped up against its ultimate performance ceiling. I noticed there was an article musing about exactly that question in the Sunday Boston Globe Ideas Section ("Peaked Performance"). I didn't bother writing about it because a) I've written about it before, and b) there was nothing really new in the article. Of course what happens is that some researcher releases a study showing that human kind has reached some sort of bio-evolutionary limit. The research includes a statistical analysis of the progress of track and field records. It's all very convincing, and yet deep down we all know that somewhere among the world's seven billion people, in some remote village or town, there is a young girl or young boy who will not have read the research and is preparing to redefine what we consider possible.
Another topic that's always good for several column inches in a running magazine is the idea that if we would only eat/train/dress like our ancient ancestors we would cure all the ills brought about by our modern and decadent lifestyles. I don't usually pay any attention to this sort of thing (look how long I ignored barefoot running...) but I respect Runner's World columnist Amby Burfoot's writings, so I was surprised to see his recent post on the "Paleo Diet" (Updating the Paleo Diet). The Paleo Diet suggests that we should eat the way our paleolithic forbears did. That's cool -- the modern diet is certainly problematic -- but the Paleo-enthusiasts lose me with their assertion that we took a nutritional wrong turn when we learned to harvest wheat.
Anyway, I mentioned those two articles to make the point that the topics seem to be recycled from year-to-year precisely because there's no way of settling the questions they raise. They are the journalistic equivalent of arguing that Bob Feller was a better pitcher than Pedro Martinez.
Anyway, I felt like I hit the trifecta when I noticed an article in Slate Magazine that muses on the similarities between exercise and drug use ("Gym Rats and Dope Fiends"). I figured it would be another alarmist piece about how running is an addiction, and how runners are risking their health, their relationships, and their livelihoods because they can't give up their daily fix of mileage. I'd read that kind of thing before, and I was prepared to be dismissive.
But instead, I found that the author, Daniel Engber, had written a very thoughtful and (I thought) well-informed piece about the complex interaction between exercise and substance addiction.
Engber begins by establishing that exercise has been shown to make rats and people less susceptible to the effects of addictive substances like morphine, heroine, nicotine, etc. He then asserts that science has not established why this is the case. One possibility is that exercise induces some of the same effects of those substances in the brain. I learned, for example, that the word "endorphin" -- used to decribe the naturally occurring chemicals responsible for the pleasant sensations we associate with exercise -- is a shorthand for "endogenous morphine." Who knew?
Engber describes how the last several decades have seen an evolution of the idea of behavior as being shaped by the pleasure centers in the brain. He associates this line of thinking with the relatively recent identification of exercise "addiction," defined as an unhealthy compulsion to exercise to the detriment of other needs.
But Engber is careful not to exploit the opportunity to make simplistic comparisons between (or jokes about) running and real drug habits. As he writes...
"...exercise is not like heroin, at least not in the sense of fundamental psychopathology. And it's best to avoid the semantic controversy over whether any behavior --weightlifting, shopping, eating, f***ing, playing World of Warcraft -- should properly be termed an "addiction," or a "dependence," or even appear at all, in the official manual of psychiatric diagnoses."
On a personal level, I've basically been asking myself for nearly thirty years the question of whether my long habit of running is a problem that rises to the level of an addiction, obsession, or compulsion. Over and over again, I've reached the conclusion that it is not. As evidence, I say that every time I've stopped running for any length of time, it was actually pretty hard to start up again. What self-respecting addiction makes it really difficult to relapse? Furthermore, when I've stopped, I've felt pretty good -- not depressed, not unproductive. My time off has been useful.
So why do any of us do it so compulsively if we're not actually compelled? Well that's a complicated question but I think it comes down to weighing a life with or without running and deciding -- over-and-over again -- that running adds something not easily found in other things we do. It doesn't make sense to call this an addiction, any more than it would make sense to call writing this blog an addiction.
I mean, I'd sure have a lot more free time if I didn't run and didn't write -- but in the end, we do the things we do for self-satisfaction, to fulfill a need, as Coach Blackburn would say.
So whatever the similarities, the need to be satisfied with ourselves stands apart from the need to serve the biochemical cravings of a substance addition. Endorphins are a nice perk of running, but they aren't the reason I do it.
January 25, 2011
Martin Duffy Obituary in Boston Globe
He was captain of the track team at Durfee High School in Fall River.
Like many high school track stars, he set aside running when he went off to college, attending Tufts on an academic scholarship. That, it would seem, would be the end of his athletic glory, right?
But wait... Let's pause the newsreel for a moment.
I think that sometimes we make high school sports seem like the be-all, end-all of life. We rightly celebrate the accomplishments of teenagers, but then forget about those athletes when they graduate and their lives branch out into other interests and broader themes. I've always thought that it was a little bit sad to think that someone might feel their best days were behind them before hitting their 20th birthday.
Martin Duffy, a member of my running club, passed away on November 29th, 2010. There is a nice obituary of Martin in today's Boston Globe. Martin was a really interesting and impressive person, brilliant and generous and full of life. But every tribute to Martin will lead with his running accomplishments, and here's why:
When he was twenty-nine and more than a decade removed from his high school exploits, Martin took the first steps in a remarkable streak that towers above all those races he won as a teenager. He ran the Boston Marathon. That was in 1970.
He ran it again the next year, and the next, and the next.
In 2009, a few months after being diagnosed with throat cancer, Martin Duffy ran his 40th consecutive Boston Marathon at the age of sixty-nine. In addition to running despite battling the disease that would eventually take his life, his streak included one year when he ran the race on what he later found out was a fractured foot. It included numerous other times when injuries would have stopped a less determined, less positive person than Martin. Somehow, he finished the race with the broken bone, as he finished all the others, by taking them a mile at a time.
I doubt that Martin knew what he was getting into when he started the streak. I'm sure he didn't think it would be such a large part of his legacy. Maybe at the old age of twenty-nine it was just something to do, something to stave off the chill of approaching middle-age. I don't know, and I don't think it matters.
What I do know is that there's more to running than the part that ends with your final high school meet. If you can find room in your life for them, there are other worlds to conquer, other goals that are meaningful. I also know that no one should be afraid to start something new and daring and ambitious -- not at twenty-nine, thirty-nine, or fifty-nine.
So if time seems to be passing too quickly, if you feel over-the-hill, consider that there's always some new challenge out there, waiting for you. Who knows? It might be the most impressive thing you ever do.
January 24, 2011
NNHS Alumni Results - 1/22-23/11
Harvard's Gordon Track was the venue for the 2011 Greater Boston Track Club Invitational on Sunday, with several NNHS alumni competing.
Michele Kaufman (Bowdoin '13) finished 4th in the 60m hurdles with a time of 9.48 in the finals. In the long jump, Kaufman placed 11th with a jump of 4.66m (15-3.75). In the triple jump, she placed 12th with a mark of 9.99m (32-9.25).
UMass Lowell freshman Jake Gleason, competing unattached, dropped down from his usual longer distances to race the mile, running 4:49.99.
Northeastern freshman Charles (Conor) Ebbs, set a PR in the collegiate shot put, hitting a mark of 12.98m (42-7.25), good enough for 8th. Ebbs also competed in the weight throw, hitting a mark of 13.49m (44-3).
An alumnus from a different era, Dave Cahill, competed in the 800m, running 2:03.40.
(Another time that stood out: Brookline alum and current BU student Robert Gibson ran a very nice 4:09.68 to place 4th in the invitational mile.)
On Saturday, Springfield College hosted a meet for eight local college teams.
Hymlaire Lamisere placed 5th in the 55 dash, running 6.74 in the finals. The UMass Dartmouth student also placed 9th in the long jump (6.06m / 19-10.75) and ran on his team's winning 4x200m relay.
Also on Saturday, Yale hosted a triangular meet with Dartmouth and Columbia.
David Smith took 2nd in the shot put (14.95m / 49-0.5) and 4th in the weight throw (14.85m / 48-8.5).
Michele Kaufman (Bowdoin '13) finished 4th in the 60m hurdles with a time of 9.48 in the finals. In the long jump, Kaufman placed 11th with a jump of 4.66m (15-3.75). In the triple jump, she placed 12th with a mark of 9.99m (32-9.25).
UMass Lowell freshman Jake Gleason, competing unattached, dropped down from his usual longer distances to race the mile, running 4:49.99.
Northeastern freshman Charles (Conor) Ebbs, set a PR in the collegiate shot put, hitting a mark of 12.98m (42-7.25), good enough for 8th. Ebbs also competed in the weight throw, hitting a mark of 13.49m (44-3).
An alumnus from a different era, Dave Cahill, competed in the 800m, running 2:03.40.
(Another time that stood out: Brookline alum and current BU student Robert Gibson ran a very nice 4:09.68 to place 4th in the invitational mile.)
On Saturday, Springfield College hosted a meet for eight local college teams.
Hymlaire Lamisere placed 5th in the 55 dash, running 6.74 in the finals. The UMass Dartmouth student also placed 9th in the long jump (6.06m / 19-10.75) and ran on his team's winning 4x200m relay.
Also on Saturday, Yale hosted a triangular meet with Dartmouth and Columbia.
David Smith took 2nd in the shot put (14.95m / 49-0.5) and 4th in the weight throw (14.85m / 48-8.5).
January 21, 2011
North Boys Survive Weymouth on Strength of SP, 4x400
Well, I was wrong about this one.
I thought Newton North's well-balanced attack would be too much for Weymouth to handle. Instead, the Wildcats had the better meet, outscoring North in the distances, earning tough points with numerous second- and third-places, and riding a nearly perfect night from Tyler Mulcahy (two firsts, two very close seconds) to keep pace with the Tigers.
But in the end, North had two weapons Weymouth didn't have -- Mike Bower's cadre of shot putters, and the talents of Isaiah Penn.
The meet began with Weymouth's Steve Sollowin winning a nifty battle in the mile against Justin Keefe. Justin kept pace through 1200m, but in the last two laps, Sollowin kicked away to finish in 4:24.28, the third fastest time in the state this season, with Keefe at 4:29.87.
Ezra Lichtman won the 1000 with no problem, and Penn followed suit in the 600. In both races, however, Weymouth took 2nd and 3rd, and Weymouth maintained a narrow lead heading into the shorter events.
In the 300, Mulcahy very nearly pulled the upset of the night, running down Terrell Doyle in the final straightaway. Had the race been two meters longer, Mulcahy would have been first, but Doyle hit the actual finish line a mere two-hundredths of a second ahead of the hard-charging Weymouth sprinter. With Ben Clark taking third, North had it's first lead in the track events, albeit a narrow one.
The 2-mile was fun to watch -- for Weymouth fans. Weymouth's Nolan Parsley calmly followed North's Dan Ranti for the first 3000 meters before unleashing a very effective kick over the last lap to take the win. Parsley's winning time was 9:54.79, about three seconds ahead of Ranti, but it seemed like much more as Parsley was still pulling away when he crossed the line. North sophomore David Demerest took 3rd for the Tigers, breaking 11:00 in his first 2M of the season.
On the infield, Mulcahy won the hurdles for Weymouth with Young Guang and Nick Fofana taking 2nd and 3rd. North got a welcome win from Nate Menninger in the 55 dash (6.95) and James Igumba picked up 3rd place just ahead of Guang.
Before and after all this excitement, the field events had been trending in favor of North. In the long jump, Mulcahy won with a jump of 19-3, with North's Tylor Hart and Nick Fofana taking 2nd and 3rd. It was the same three athletes scoring in the high jump, but with Hart clearing 5-11 for the win, and Mulcahy at 5-9 for second.
That left the shot put, and Mike Bowers' crew swamped Weymouth and everyone else in the league, taking the top four places. The North throwers were led by "Boss of the Toss" Swardick Mayanja, who popped a 52-0.75 throw to win. Young Guang was over 48' for second, and Ryan Donovan took 3rd.
The sweep would prove decisive. In no other event did either team take even 1st and 2nd, let alone sweep. Other than the shot put, the teams were very evenly matched:
But with nine points in the shot, North couldn't be caught.
In a way, it's too bad that the meet didn't come down to the relay, because that race took a dramatic turn when North dropped the baton on a middle leg and fell several seconds behind the Weymouth team. When Sollowin took the baton for the Wildcats' final leg, he enjoyed a 3-4 second lead. But North had Penn running last, and the North senior blasted out an arena-rocking come-from-behind tell-this-to-your-grandchildren anchor leg. His first 200 was 23-flat, cutting the deficit to five meters. Although tiring on the final lap, Penn kept closing the gap and went by Sollowin on the final turn. I had Penn's split as 50-flat.
Next up for North is their final Carey Division meet of the season against Needham on January 27th.
I thought Newton North's well-balanced attack would be too much for Weymouth to handle. Instead, the Wildcats had the better meet, outscoring North in the distances, earning tough points with numerous second- and third-places, and riding a nearly perfect night from Tyler Mulcahy (two firsts, two very close seconds) to keep pace with the Tigers.
But in the end, North had two weapons Weymouth didn't have -- Mike Bower's cadre of shot putters, and the talents of Isaiah Penn.
The meet began with Weymouth's Steve Sollowin winning a nifty battle in the mile against Justin Keefe. Justin kept pace through 1200m, but in the last two laps, Sollowin kicked away to finish in 4:24.28, the third fastest time in the state this season, with Keefe at 4:29.87.
Ezra Lichtman won the 1000 with no problem, and Penn followed suit in the 600. In both races, however, Weymouth took 2nd and 3rd, and Weymouth maintained a narrow lead heading into the shorter events.
In the 300, Mulcahy very nearly pulled the upset of the night, running down Terrell Doyle in the final straightaway. Had the race been two meters longer, Mulcahy would have been first, but Doyle hit the actual finish line a mere two-hundredths of a second ahead of the hard-charging Weymouth sprinter. With Ben Clark taking third, North had it's first lead in the track events, albeit a narrow one.
The 2-mile was fun to watch -- for Weymouth fans. Weymouth's Nolan Parsley calmly followed North's Dan Ranti for the first 3000 meters before unleashing a very effective kick over the last lap to take the win. Parsley's winning time was 9:54.79, about three seconds ahead of Ranti, but it seemed like much more as Parsley was still pulling away when he crossed the line. North sophomore David Demerest took 3rd for the Tigers, breaking 11:00 in his first 2M of the season.
On the infield, Mulcahy won the hurdles for Weymouth with Young Guang and Nick Fofana taking 2nd and 3rd. North got a welcome win from Nate Menninger in the 55 dash (6.95) and James Igumba picked up 3rd place just ahead of Guang.
Before and after all this excitement, the field events had been trending in favor of North. In the long jump, Mulcahy won with a jump of 19-3, with North's Tylor Hart and Nick Fofana taking 2nd and 3rd. It was the same three athletes scoring in the high jump, but with Hart clearing 5-11 for the win, and Mulcahy at 5-9 for second.
That left the shot put, and Mike Bowers' crew swamped Weymouth and everyone else in the league, taking the top four places. The North throwers were led by "Boss of the Toss" Swardick Mayanja, who popped a 52-0.75 throw to win. Young Guang was over 48' for second, and Ryan Donovan took 3rd.
The sweep would prove decisive. In no other event did either team take even 1st and 2nd, let alone sweep. Other than the shot put, the teams were very evenly matched:
NN Wey
1M 4 5
1000 5 4
600 5 4
300 6 3
2M 4 5
55H 4 5
55 6 3
HJ 6 3
LJ 4 5
--- -- --
44 37
But with nine points in the shot, North couldn't be caught.
In a way, it's too bad that the meet didn't come down to the relay, because that race took a dramatic turn when North dropped the baton on a middle leg and fell several seconds behind the Weymouth team. When Sollowin took the baton for the Wildcats' final leg, he enjoyed a 3-4 second lead. But North had Penn running last, and the North senior blasted out an arena-rocking come-from-behind tell-this-to-your-grandchildren anchor leg. His first 200 was 23-flat, cutting the deficit to five meters. Although tiring on the final lap, Penn kept closing the gap and went by Sollowin on the final turn. I had Penn's split as 50-flat.
Next up for North is their final Carey Division meet of the season against Needham on January 27th.
North Girls Rise to New Heights in Win Over Weymouth
One of the great things about watching a close track meet is that after a while, everything seems to be happening at once -- each jump, each throw, each lap resonating with increasing significance, creating a hum of escalating drama.
There was a moment in yesterday's meet between Newton North and Weymouth when I had that feeling. The high jump bar was at 4-11. Newton North's three jumpers cleared it quickly, while Weymouth's two jumpers missed. Meanwhile, the shot put was about to start, and the 600 was on the track. It felt like I was standing at the precise turning point of the meet, the fulcrum upon which the final result would depend.
Earlier races and events had gone mostly to form. The long jump had finished quickly, with North taking first (Carla Forbes, 17-11) and third (Kayla Wong, 16-2.5). Weymouth's Jillian Glover had done well to eke out 2nd for the Wildcats with a leap of 16-3.25.
Unlike last year, Jill Corcoran and Margo Gillis were in separate events, so there were no epic clashes in the distance events. Corcoran won the mile easily (with Maggie and Evie Heffernan taking a welcome 2nd and 3rd), and Gillis cruised to victory in the 1000 (3:05.40), with Weymouth taking 2nd and 3rd (Becca Trayner coming up just short in her bid to nab the third scoring spot).
Holding a slight edge, North needed the high jump to go well to neutralize Weymouth's likely sweep in the shot put. It went very well for the Tigers. When Weymouth's jumpers both went out at 4-11, North was guaranteed of the sweep. But all three -- Lucia Grigoli, Emily Hutchinson, and Maeve Larkin -- cleared the next height of 5-1. Hutchinson and Larkin had good jumps at 5-3, but only Grigoli cleared that height. Having won the competition, she chose to set the bar at 5-4, a personal best. When she cleared that, she set off a celebration right there on the foam mats.
Meanwhile in the 600, Meghan Bellerose was using a hard-charging final lap to pass Weymouth's Bridget Jaklitsch and Jenn Kimball, winning in a personal best 1:41.76. The win was huge, representing an 8-point swing in favor of the Tigers. A quick tally showed North ahead with 29 points to Weymouth's 25 heading into the sprints and the 2-mile. While nothing was certain, there was no doubt that the momentum and the edge were now North's.
In the 300, Carla Forbes and Suzi Bennett went 1-3, with Weymouth's Melissa Darling taking 2nd. In the 2-mile, Weymouth took 1st and 2nd, with Devika Banerjee getting 3rd for the Tigers. But that result was offset by the 55 hurdles, where Kayla Wong (8.75) and Amy Ren (9.15) took 1st and 2nd.
With two events left, the 55 dash and the relay, the score stood at 44-37 in favor of Newton North.
While nothing is inevitable in track and field, Weymouth's coach Mike Miller knew that his team's chances were slim. That's because the athlete settling into the blocks in the middle of the oval was not only very fast, but competitive, tough-minded, and focused, not to mention experienced far beyond her years. At the risk of burdening her with unfair expectations, I'll say that at that moment, Carla Forbes was the closest thing to a mortal lock that Joe Tranchita could have asked for. When the gun went off signaling a legal start, it only took 7.54 seconds to settle the matter. Forbes flashed across the line first, followed by Kayla Wong and Steph Brown. North's sweep in the dash clinched the victory for the Tigers, and a few minutes later, their win in the relay added emphasis to the team effort it had taken to beat a very deep Weymouth squad.
The win against Weymouth puts North's record at 4-0 and virtually guarantees them the Carey Division title. With Dartmouth and the State relays behind them, with their most dangerous rival behind them -- at least for this season -- North now begins building toward the Class and State meets.
Complete results on CoolRunning.com
January 18, 2011
Do Orthotics Work?
I don't wear orthotics, but if I did, I'd like to feel some confidence in their effectiveness, preferably backed up by plenty of research.
It seems, however, that there's some mystery about orthotics, at least that's the suggestion of an article in the January 17th NY Times summarizing the work of Benno M. Nigg. Dr. Nigg is a professor of biomechanics and co-director of the Human Performance Lab at the University of Calgary in Alberta, and he claims that the research is mostly inconclusive about whether orthotics work, and if they do, how they actually benefit athletes who use them.
To be sure, runners seem to like them. I'm pretty confident that among my readers there are runners who will swear that orthotics have helped them correct biomechanical issues and have allowed them to run injury-free. I'm willing to accept that evidence at face value: orthotics do help some people.
But here's one mystery: In Dr. Nigg's studies, he found there was no way to predict the effect of a given orthotic on an athlete. The article says:
"One person might respond by increasing the stress on the outside of the foot, another on the inside. Another might not respond at all, unconsciously correcting the orthotic’s correction."
Here's another mystery: assuming there is a biomechanical problem to correct, there seems to be little agreement about the best way to make an insert to achieve the desired effect. I.e., if the same runner visits a number of different certified makers of orthotics, he or she might come away with devices that take quite different approaches to correcting the perceived biomechanical flaw.
The article asks: what do orthotics actually do? Well, they don't seem to change the way the skeleton moves, but they do seem to make certain muscles work significantly harder (or less hard), and increase (or decrease) stress on certain joints. That sounds promising, but again, there seem to be few rigorous studies to show how to take advantage of these effects.
The article never mentions the issue of anatomical asymmetry -- having legs of different lengths or feet of different size. I found myself wondering whether studies might reach different conclusions with a more set of subjects who shared some such trait.
I suppose one hopeful conclusion came from one study of Canadian soldiers, in which half were allowed to choose from several different types of orthotics and the other half continued with none. The group that chose their own seemed to have about half the injuries of the control group. But here's yet another mystery: "...there was no obvious relation between the insert a soldier chose and his biomechanics without it."
Well, I suspect that the fault might lie with the sensitivity of the tests, but what do I know.
Hey wait, I haven't heard from Bob Chasen for a while. Unlike me, he is a professional and has thought about this stuff for thirty years. (If you have't read his blog, Taking Things in Stride, you should.) If you're out there Dr. Bob, would you care to comment? What does an orthpedist think about this unorthodox take on orthotics?
Preview: Newton North v. Weymouth
Indoor Track's Carey Division Title will be decided on Thursday, as Newton North faces Weymouth in the fourth meet of the season for both schools. Is it too late for a preview?
On the boys side, Newton North is the clear favorite, but the Tigers will not be complacent, and will be convinced that they must claw for every point to come out ahead of the Wildcats. On the girls side, I've said it all before but the two teams are separated by a few centimeters, a few hundredths of a second here and there. However, Sunday's State Relays suggests that Newton North might have a tiny bit more margin for error.
I expect the boys meet to start close, but not end that way. I expect the girls meet to start close and end closer.
Boys Preview
Weymouth's strengths: long sprints, middle distances
NN's strengths: no weak events, dominant shot put team
Weymouth has several fine athletes, but it's hard to see how they can overcome North's depth. To begin with, North likely sweeps the shot put and goes 1-2 in the high jump. Even if Tyler Mulcahy can win the long jump for the Wildcats, that still leaves them with a 21-6 deficit in the field events, hard to make up against the Tiger's deep team.
Before the field events play out, there could be some great match-ups in the first several track races: Sollowin vs. Lichtman in the mile (edge to Sollowin); Keefe vs. Parsley in the 1000 (edge to Keefe), Stuart vs. Penn in the 600 (Penn looks very strong, especially after his 49-high split on Sunday).
The problem for Weymouth is that Sollowin can only run one event. If he's in the mile, Dan Ranti should have no problem winning the deuce. Meanwhile, in the sprint, Mulcahy might well win the hurdles, but I think Ryan Lucken wins the 300 and North takes the 55 dash.
Not that it will matter by then, but North also has the better relay team, capable of running close to 3:30 if needed.
Girls Preview
Weymouth's strengths: distance events, shot put, long jump, will contest every event
NN's strengths: sprints, long sprints, hurdles, both jumps, overall depth
As the meet begins, Weymouth will have a lot of options for deploying their excellent distance runners. Assuming that everyone is healthy, I'll speculate that the Wildcats go with Jill Corcoran in the mile, Morgan Fitzgibbon and Allison Brady in the 1000, and Julie Tevenen and Vanessa Murphy in the 2-mile. I honestly have no idea where Bridget Jaklitsch will run, but she could win or place in any event form the 600 to the 2-mile. NN's main decision is where to run Margo Gillis. It seems like she would be most comfortable and effective in the 1000 or 600, so I'll speculate she runs the 1000 and comes back for the 4x400 relay. Meghan Bellerose has the league's second-fastest time in the 600 and probably runs there.
In any case, Weymouth has the clear advantage in the three longest races. I'll predict they outscore North 18-9 in the 1M, 1000, and 2M.
In the sprints, the situation is reversed. It's not that Weymouth is weak -- far from it -- it's that Newton is really strong, with Carla Forbes and Madi Nadeau, Steph Brown, Kayla Wong, etc. Forbes and Nadeau should go 1-2 in the 300. Forbes wins again in the 55, but let's give Melissa Darling 2nd place. The hurdles might be closer than people expect, but I see North going 1-3 there as well. That's a 20-7 edge for the Tigers, but these could be very close races and hundredths of a second will matter.
As for the 600, that could be a battle between Meghan Bellerose and Jenn Kimball, with little to choose between them. I'll give NN an uneasy 5 points here.
In the field events, Weymouth is much stronger in the shot put. While it's a stretch, I'm going to say they sweep there. If they don't, well that's a problem for them because North has the ability to go 1-2 or even sweep the high jump. However, I thought the same thing last year and Emily Clark proved me wrong and won the event outright, so nothing is certain in this event. I'll say NN earns 8 points, but this is definitely an event to watch closely.
Although Carla Forbes should win, the battle for 2nd and 3rd in the long jump should be one of the best competitions of the night. On Sunday, Weymouth's three jumpers won the DI State Relays title. I'll say 5-4 for North in this event.
Adding it all up, that would leave the score 47-43 in favor of North going into the relay, where North has been extremely strong.
What Weymouth needs to win the meet is to upset the above predictions in one or two events, and perform up to expectations in all the others. The field events will be huge, and if Weymouth can win those decisively they can certainly win the meet. But if North takes care of business in the HJ and LJ, it's hard to see how Weymouth will amass enough points elsewhere to not have it come down to the relay.
Anyway, as always it will be one of the best meets of the year. Good luck to ALL competitors and their coaches. It should be a blast!
On the boys side, Newton North is the clear favorite, but the Tigers will not be complacent, and will be convinced that they must claw for every point to come out ahead of the Wildcats. On the girls side, I've said it all before but the two teams are separated by a few centimeters, a few hundredths of a second here and there. However, Sunday's State Relays suggests that Newton North might have a tiny bit more margin for error.
I expect the boys meet to start close, but not end that way. I expect the girls meet to start close and end closer.
Boys Preview
Weymouth's strengths: long sprints, middle distances
NN's strengths: no weak events, dominant shot put team
Weymouth has several fine athletes, but it's hard to see how they can overcome North's depth. To begin with, North likely sweeps the shot put and goes 1-2 in the high jump. Even if Tyler Mulcahy can win the long jump for the Wildcats, that still leaves them with a 21-6 deficit in the field events, hard to make up against the Tiger's deep team.
Before the field events play out, there could be some great match-ups in the first several track races: Sollowin vs. Lichtman in the mile (edge to Sollowin); Keefe vs. Parsley in the 1000 (edge to Keefe), Stuart vs. Penn in the 600 (Penn looks very strong, especially after his 49-high split on Sunday).
The problem for Weymouth is that Sollowin can only run one event. If he's in the mile, Dan Ranti should have no problem winning the deuce. Meanwhile, in the sprint, Mulcahy might well win the hurdles, but I think Ryan Lucken wins the 300 and North takes the 55 dash.
Not that it will matter by then, but North also has the better relay team, capable of running close to 3:30 if needed.
Girls Preview
Weymouth's strengths: distance events, shot put, long jump, will contest every event
NN's strengths: sprints, long sprints, hurdles, both jumps, overall depth
As the meet begins, Weymouth will have a lot of options for deploying their excellent distance runners. Assuming that everyone is healthy, I'll speculate that the Wildcats go with Jill Corcoran in the mile, Morgan Fitzgibbon and Allison Brady in the 1000, and Julie Tevenen and Vanessa Murphy in the 2-mile. I honestly have no idea where Bridget Jaklitsch will run, but she could win or place in any event form the 600 to the 2-mile. NN's main decision is where to run Margo Gillis. It seems like she would be most comfortable and effective in the 1000 or 600, so I'll speculate she runs the 1000 and comes back for the 4x400 relay. Meghan Bellerose has the league's second-fastest time in the 600 and probably runs there.
In any case, Weymouth has the clear advantage in the three longest races. I'll predict they outscore North 18-9 in the 1M, 1000, and 2M.
In the sprints, the situation is reversed. It's not that Weymouth is weak -- far from it -- it's that Newton is really strong, with Carla Forbes and Madi Nadeau, Steph Brown, Kayla Wong, etc. Forbes and Nadeau should go 1-2 in the 300. Forbes wins again in the 55, but let's give Melissa Darling 2nd place. The hurdles might be closer than people expect, but I see North going 1-3 there as well. That's a 20-7 edge for the Tigers, but these could be very close races and hundredths of a second will matter.
As for the 600, that could be a battle between Meghan Bellerose and Jenn Kimball, with little to choose between them. I'll give NN an uneasy 5 points here.
In the field events, Weymouth is much stronger in the shot put. While it's a stretch, I'm going to say they sweep there. If they don't, well that's a problem for them because North has the ability to go 1-2 or even sweep the high jump. However, I thought the same thing last year and Emily Clark proved me wrong and won the event outright, so nothing is certain in this event. I'll say NN earns 8 points, but this is definitely an event to watch closely.
Although Carla Forbes should win, the battle for 2nd and 3rd in the long jump should be one of the best competitions of the night. On Sunday, Weymouth's three jumpers won the DI State Relays title. I'll say 5-4 for North in this event.
Adding it all up, that would leave the score 47-43 in favor of North going into the relay, where North has been extremely strong.
What Weymouth needs to win the meet is to upset the above predictions in one or two events, and perform up to expectations in all the others. The field events will be huge, and if Weymouth can win those decisively they can certainly win the meet. But if North takes care of business in the HJ and LJ, it's hard to see how Weymouth will amass enough points elsewhere to not have it come down to the relay.
Anyway, as always it will be one of the best meets of the year. Good luck to ALL competitors and their coaches. It should be a blast!
January 17, 2011
NN Girls Win State Relays; Boys 3rd, With U.S. #1 SMR
The Newton North Girls won three races and finished second in the two jump relays, earning enough points to overcome a DQ in their strongest event and go on to win the 2011 Div I State Relays Championship. The NN boys were also in the hunt for a trophy but settled for third behind New Bedford and Acton-Boxborough.
Girls: North Holds Off Andover
The girls meet was expected to be a battle between Newton North and Andover, and that's how it played out, with Weymouth making a strong run for third. The NN girls got off to a great start with an unexpected point in the 4x800, and a come-from-behind victory in the sprint medley (on the strength of a 60-flat anchor leg from sophomore Madison Nadeau).
Meanwhile, North was hoping for big things from the high jump, which was taking all morning. Unfortunately, all three of North's jumpers had mear-misses in their final attempts -- Amy Ren going out at 4-9, Maeve Larkin at 4-11, and Emily Hutchinson at 5-1. When 2010 state champ Moira Cronin cleared 5-3, she clinched the victory for Andover by a mere 2 centimeters over NN in second. That was a 4-point swing. Would it come back to haunt the Tigers?
North won again in the 4x50 shuttle hurdle relay, with Kayla Wong, Steph Brown, Amy Ren, and Kayla Prior running 29.88. Shortly thereafter, the team of Carla Forbes, Brown, Wong, and Bridget McLaughlin appeared to have won the 4x50m shuttle relay, with the scoreboard showing 24.49 -- a time that would have been 0.22 faster than the all-class record. Instead, the Tigers were disqualified. I don't know what the infraction was, but from the stands it appeared that North's third runner flinched -- started and stopped -- before the incoming second runner had arrived. If that was the reason for the DQ, it's too bad because it did not appear to give North any advantage. In any case, the DQ deprived the Tigers of 10 points and promoted Andover from 5th to 4th -- a 12-point swing.
But the Tigers had two more events in which to make up ground. In the final race on the track, North dominated the 4x400 relay, winning by six seconds with the quartet of Margo Gillis, Meghan Bellerose, Nadeau, and Suzy Bennett. In the long jump relay, the Tigers placed second behind Weymouth. Those 8 points pushed North's total to 47, five better than Andover and securing the title.
The Tigers don't get to rest on their laurels very long. On tap this week is the much-anticipated dual meet showdown with Weymouth.
Boys: NN Runs U.S. #1 Time in SMR; Mayanja Puts Shot 53-9!!
Another sprint medley, another come-from-behind win for the Tigers. The NN boys got splits of 1:59, 22.8, and 23.6 from Ezra Lichtman, Terrell Doyle, and Ryan Lucken on the 800, 200, and 200 legs. Then Isiaih Penn took the baton and took over the race, rocketing into first with a 23.4 first 200, and holding on to split 49.9 and carry the North boys to the fastest HS time in the U.S. this year (3:35.27).
North also got a second-place finish in the 4x200 with Lucken, Doyle, and Penn (plus Ben Clark), running 1:32.38.
In the DMR, North placed 6th and picked up another point.
In the field event relays, North did well but might have hoped for even a little bit better. North's shot put relay team had to be content with 2nd place, as their combined distance was only 3 cm behind Methuen. The exciting news for Tiger fans? Swardiq Mayanja had the best throw of the day and a big personal breakthrough with a toss of 53-9.75.
I should also mention that North's "B" shot put team finished 9th, with all three throwers (Nick Fofana, Nate Menninger, and Carl Witham) over 40'. I don't think I've ever seen a shot put B team before, let alone one that could compete for points against the best in the state.
North's high jump relay finished tied for 7th.
Full results (boys and girls) at the following link:
DI State Relays - Results
Girls: North Holds Off Andover
The girls meet was expected to be a battle between Newton North and Andover, and that's how it played out, with Weymouth making a strong run for third. The NN girls got off to a great start with an unexpected point in the 4x800, and a come-from-behind victory in the sprint medley (on the strength of a 60-flat anchor leg from sophomore Madison Nadeau).
Meanwhile, North was hoping for big things from the high jump, which was taking all morning. Unfortunately, all three of North's jumpers had mear-misses in their final attempts -- Amy Ren going out at 4-9, Maeve Larkin at 4-11, and Emily Hutchinson at 5-1. When 2010 state champ Moira Cronin cleared 5-3, she clinched the victory for Andover by a mere 2 centimeters over NN in second. That was a 4-point swing. Would it come back to haunt the Tigers?
North won again in the 4x50 shuttle hurdle relay, with Kayla Wong, Steph Brown, Amy Ren, and Kayla Prior running 29.88. Shortly thereafter, the team of Carla Forbes, Brown, Wong, and Bridget McLaughlin appeared to have won the 4x50m shuttle relay, with the scoreboard showing 24.49 -- a time that would have been 0.22 faster than the all-class record. Instead, the Tigers were disqualified. I don't know what the infraction was, but from the stands it appeared that North's third runner flinched -- started and stopped -- before the incoming second runner had arrived. If that was the reason for the DQ, it's too bad because it did not appear to give North any advantage. In any case, the DQ deprived the Tigers of 10 points and promoted Andover from 5th to 4th -- a 12-point swing.
But the Tigers had two more events in which to make up ground. In the final race on the track, North dominated the 4x400 relay, winning by six seconds with the quartet of Margo Gillis, Meghan Bellerose, Nadeau, and Suzy Bennett. In the long jump relay, the Tigers placed second behind Weymouth. Those 8 points pushed North's total to 47, five better than Andover and securing the title.
The Tigers don't get to rest on their laurels very long. On tap this week is the much-anticipated dual meet showdown with Weymouth.
Boys: NN Runs U.S. #1 Time in SMR; Mayanja Puts Shot 53-9!!
Another sprint medley, another come-from-behind win for the Tigers. The NN boys got splits of 1:59, 22.8, and 23.6 from Ezra Lichtman, Terrell Doyle, and Ryan Lucken on the 800, 200, and 200 legs. Then Isiaih Penn took the baton and took over the race, rocketing into first with a 23.4 first 200, and holding on to split 49.9 and carry the North boys to the fastest HS time in the U.S. this year (3:35.27).
North also got a second-place finish in the 4x200 with Lucken, Doyle, and Penn (plus Ben Clark), running 1:32.38.
In the DMR, North placed 6th and picked up another point.
In the field event relays, North did well but might have hoped for even a little bit better. North's shot put relay team had to be content with 2nd place, as their combined distance was only 3 cm behind Methuen. The exciting news for Tiger fans? Swardiq Mayanja had the best throw of the day and a big personal breakthrough with a toss of 53-9.75.
I should also mention that North's "B" shot put team finished 9th, with all three throwers (Nick Fofana, Nate Menninger, and Carl Witham) over 40'. I don't think I've ever seen a shot put B team before, let alone one that could compete for points against the best in the state.
North's high jump relay finished tied for 7th.
Full results (boys and girls) at the following link:
DI State Relays - Results
January 14, 2011
New Balance Kicks in $20K to Clear Charles River Paths
According to an article on Boston.com, New Balance is continuing a partnership with the Mass. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation to fund snow removal from the paths along the Charles River. New Balance will kick in $20,000 to help clear the paths so the people can run (and walk and cycle).
Partnership to Fund Snow Removal Along Charles River Paths
Good for New Balance! The Charles is a great resource for runners, and helping make it accessible all winter is a nice gesture.
If you click on the link above, be sure to check out the picture, which shows Harvard Professor Dan Lieberman running next to the Charles in minimalist shoes. I guess they recycled the picture from last year's article on Lieberman's research into impact forces of barefoot running.
Partnership to Fund Snow Removal Along Charles River Paths
Good for New Balance! The Charles is a great resource for runners, and helping make it accessible all winter is a nice gesture.
If you click on the link above, be sure to check out the picture, which shows Harvard Professor Dan Lieberman running next to the Charles in minimalist shoes. I guess they recycled the picture from last year's article on Lieberman's research into impact forces of barefoot running.
Brookline No Match for NN Blizzard
It's always a challenge to report on a meet based on posted results without having seen the races or heard the cheering of the crowd. Online results don't always tell the whole story (even assuming those results are accurate, which is not guaranteed).
But when I opened up the Bay State Meet #3 results last night, I felt pretty confident in my interpretation of the latest chapter in the Newton North vs. Brookline rivalry. On this winter afternoon, at least, the NN boys had neutralized Brookline's distance depth and then buried the Warriors in the sprints, jumps, and throws. The final score was a lopsided 78-17.
To me, the most surprising thing was that Brookline -- the 2010 State cross-country champions, hence, the best distance running team in the state -- didn't win any of the three distance events. North's big three of Ezra Lichtman, Justin Keefe, and Dan Ranti won the 1M, 1000, and 2M, respectively. I'm pretty sure Keefe's 2:37.82 in the 1000 is a PR, as well as being one of the top dozen times in the state so far this year.
Other notable performances for the NN boys:
- Freshman Nick Fofana led all high jumpers with a clearance at 6-0. He also had a nice race in the hurdles, with a time of 8.79.
- North shot putters swept the top four spots overall, with Swardiq Mayanja heaving the ball 50-6 to best all other throwers by 5 feet.
- Ryan Lucken had the fastest time of the afternoon in the 300, winning in 37.15.
The NN girls were even more dominant, which was perhaps to be expected. Brookline's Leah Gellineau won the mile, and Sarah Jabour win the shot put, but those 10 points were 2/3 of the Brookline total.
North swept five events and won the 4x400 relay by half a minute. Amy Ren became the third North high jumper to clear 5-2 this season. Devika Banerjee won a close race in the 2-mile in 12:22, an 11-second PR.
The meet also served as a tune-up for the State Relays meet, scheduled for this Sunday at Reggie. The State Relays is a big deal to the girls and they look to repeat as State Champions.
They should be very strong in the LJ and HJ relays, should be at or near the top in the shuttle hurdles and 4x50 relay, and will likely be one of the teams to beat in the SMR, as well as a contender in the 4x400.
The boys should have a good day in the SP relay, the 4x200, the SMR, DMR, and 4x400.
But when I opened up the Bay State Meet #3 results last night, I felt pretty confident in my interpretation of the latest chapter in the Newton North vs. Brookline rivalry. On this winter afternoon, at least, the NN boys had neutralized Brookline's distance depth and then buried the Warriors in the sprints, jumps, and throws. The final score was a lopsided 78-17.
To me, the most surprising thing was that Brookline -- the 2010 State cross-country champions, hence, the best distance running team in the state -- didn't win any of the three distance events. North's big three of Ezra Lichtman, Justin Keefe, and Dan Ranti won the 1M, 1000, and 2M, respectively. I'm pretty sure Keefe's 2:37.82 in the 1000 is a PR, as well as being one of the top dozen times in the state so far this year.
Other notable performances for the NN boys:
- Freshman Nick Fofana led all high jumpers with a clearance at 6-0. He also had a nice race in the hurdles, with a time of 8.79.
- North shot putters swept the top four spots overall, with Swardiq Mayanja heaving the ball 50-6 to best all other throwers by 5 feet.
- Ryan Lucken had the fastest time of the afternoon in the 300, winning in 37.15.
The NN girls were even more dominant, which was perhaps to be expected. Brookline's Leah Gellineau won the mile, and Sarah Jabour win the shot put, but those 10 points were 2/3 of the Brookline total.
North swept five events and won the 4x400 relay by half a minute. Amy Ren became the third North high jumper to clear 5-2 this season. Devika Banerjee won a close race in the 2-mile in 12:22, an 11-second PR.
The meet also served as a tune-up for the State Relays meet, scheduled for this Sunday at Reggie. The State Relays is a big deal to the girls and they look to repeat as State Champions.
They should be very strong in the LJ and HJ relays, should be at or near the top in the shuttle hurdles and 4x50 relay, and will likely be one of the teams to beat in the SMR, as well as a contender in the 4x400.
The boys should have a good day in the SP relay, the 4x200, the SMR, DMR, and 4x400.
January 09, 2011
NN Girls Win 2011 Dartmouth Relays
The Newton North girls won the 2011 Dartmouth Relays title on Saturday, scoring 71 points to outpace second-place Shenendehowa by 11 points in the prestigious two-day meet.
The Tigers got individual wins from Margo Gillis in the 800 (2:23.39) and Carla Forbes in the triple jump (38-7), and a win in the 4x400 relay (4:03.75 with Madison Nadeau, Meghan Bellerose, Gillis, and Forbes).
Forbes also finished 2nd in the long jump and 4th in the 55m dash, to contribute a remarkable total of 24.5 points to the Tiger's score.
North got huge performances from Maeve Larkin, who finished 2nd in the high jump (5-2, on fewer misses) and Steph Brown, who finished 2nd in the pole vault with a jump of 10-11.75). Other scorers included Madison Nadeau in the 400 (4th, 60.65), Kayla Wong in the 55 hurdles (6th, 8.77).
And the Tigers scored in two other relays, placing 3rd in the sprint medley (4:19.49) and 5th in the 4x200 (1:51.29).
NN Results are below. Full results are available here.
The Tigers got individual wins from Margo Gillis in the 800 (2:23.39) and Carla Forbes in the triple jump (38-7), and a win in the 4x400 relay (4:03.75 with Madison Nadeau, Meghan Bellerose, Gillis, and Forbes).
Forbes also finished 2nd in the long jump and 4th in the 55m dash, to contribute a remarkable total of 24.5 points to the Tiger's score.
North got huge performances from Maeve Larkin, who finished 2nd in the high jump (5-2, on fewer misses) and Steph Brown, who finished 2nd in the pole vault with a jump of 10-11.75). Other scorers included Madison Nadeau in the 400 (4th, 60.65), Kayla Wong in the 55 hurdles (6th, 8.77).
And the Tigers scored in two other relays, placing 3rd in the sprint medley (4:19.49) and 5th in the 4x200 (1:51.29).
NN Results are below. Full results are available here.
Girls 55 Meter Dash
Preliminaries
6 1439 Forbes, Carla 10 Newton MA North 7.53q
69 1448 Lehman, Sonja 09 Newton MA North 8.18
Semi-Finals
4 1439 Forbes, Carla 10 Newton MA North 7.46Q
Finals
4 1439 Forbes, Carla 10 Newton MA North 7.37
Girls 300 Meter Dash
53 1453 Pursley, Meghan 12 Newton MA North 46.78
Girls 400 Meter Dash
4 1449 Nadeau, Madison 10 Newton MA North 1:00.65
26 1437 Bennett, Suzy 12 Newton MA North 1:07.03
Girls 800 Meter Run
1 1441 Gillis, Margo 12 Newton MA North 2:23.39
11 1444 Heffernan, Maggie 11 Newton MA North 2:29.76
Girls 55 Meter Hurdles
Preliminaries
4 1458 Wong, Kayla 11 Newton MA North 8.76q
23 1454 Ren, Amy 12 Newton MA North 9.57
31 1452 Prior, Kayla 11 Newton MA North 9.91
Semi-Finals
7 1458 Wong, Kayla 11 Newton MA North 8.75Q
Finals
6 1458 Wong, Kayla 11 Newton MA North 8.77
Girls High Jump
2 1447 Larkin, Maeve 10 Newton MA North 5-02.00 1.57m 8
7 1442 Grigoli, Lucia 11 Newton MA North 5-00.00 1.52m
7 1445 Hutchinson, Emily 12 Newton MA North 5-00.00 1.52m
Girls Pole Vault
2 1438 Brown, Steph 11 Newton MA North 3.35m 10-11.75 8
Girls Long Jump Seeded
2 1439 Forbes, Carla 10 Newton MA North 17-09.75 5.42m 8
12 1454 Ren, Amy 12 Newton MA North 15-06.75 4.74m
18 1452 Prior, Kayla 11 Newton MA North 14-04.25 4.37m
Girls Triple Jump Seeded
1 1439 Forbes, Carla 10 Newton MA North 38-07.00 11.76m 10
Girls Shot Put Unseeded
19 1456 Salvucci, Michela 11 Newton MA North 8.66m 28-05.00
Girls 4x200 Meter Relay
5 Newton MA North High School 1:51.29
1) 1438 Brown, Steph 11 2) 1458 Wong, Kayla 11
3) 1447 Larkin, Maeve 10 4) 1453 Pursley, Meghan 12
Girls 4x400 Meter Relay
1 Newton MA North High School 4:03.75
1) 1449 Nadeau, Madison 10 2) 1436 Bellerose, Meghan 10
3) 1441 Gillis, Margo 12 4) 1439 Forbes, Carla 10
Girls 1600 Sprint Medley
3 Newton MA North High School 4:19.49
1) 1441 Gillis, Margo 12 2) 1438 Brown, Steph 11
3) 1458 Wong, Kayla 11 4) 1449 Nadeau, Madison 10
January 05, 2011
Avoiding Treadmills (dot com)
One day last winter, I went for a run from my work in Burlington to Horn Pond in Woburn. After weeks of snow and cold, it was one of those great winter days when temperatures rise into the 50's, and so I was looking forward to a spring-like romp on the trails through the woods. In fact, they were miserable -- icy in some places, slushy in others, and I had to tiptoe through a mile of the stuff before emerging back on the roads.
If only I could have been warned about the trail conditions before setting off on my run!
Ah, but wherever there's a need, the Web steps forward to help. Specifically, the Boston Running Center has a web site -- www.avoidingtreadmills.com that shares information about the condition of running routes around the Boston area.
Their stated goal?
To help runners avoid using treadmills by finding safe, clear places to run!
How does it work? Well that's where you come in:
Everyone must participate! The success of this site depends on all of us, the running public, to continually update our routes - particularly during and after snow or rain storms!
If only I could have been warned about the trail conditions before setting off on my run!
Ah, but wherever there's a need, the Web steps forward to help. Specifically, the Boston Running Center has a web site -- www.avoidingtreadmills.com that shares information about the condition of running routes around the Boston area.
Their stated goal?
To help runners avoid using treadmills by finding safe, clear places to run!
How does it work? Well that's where you come in:
Everyone must participate! The success of this site depends on all of us, the running public, to continually update our routes - particularly during and after snow or rain storms!
January 04, 2011
Rio Gets the Games (October 2009)
(I wrote most of this on October 9, 2009 right after teh IOC announced that Rio de Janeiro had been awarded the 2016 Summer Games. But I got bored, and did finish it until recently...)
I used to love the whole idea of the Olympics. They seemed special, suffused with seriousness of purpose and immense historical significance. But little by little, I became disillusioned and cynical.
There was Munich. There were the boycotts. There were the scandals involving bribery of IOC members.
And as time went on, there was the increasingly poor (in the U.S.) TV coverage of the Olympics, as networks who had paid billions for the right to do so focused more and more on selling human interest stories, primarily involving U.S. athletes deemed to have star power, and less and less on sport. While I'm not inclined to give the networks a break, I'll admit that the Olympics have become ridiculously diverse and virtually uncoverable. There are so many sports in so many locales that you can almost forgive NBC for wanting to turn Beijing into the Michael Phelps show. Notice, I said "almost."
As for track and field, well, there was always plenty of coverage of the sprints. And every once in a while, there might be a few laps of a distance race sandwiched in among commercials. During the Beijing Olympics, I read about and followed the athletics competition online, and then would occasionally tune in twelve hours later to see what races NBC would feature on their evening broadcast. Of course, one could look forward to many hours of teasers for these events, which always seemed to occur in the final half hour of coverage, ensuring that I would also see as many commercials as possible. But given how much the network had paid to broadcast the games, they didn't want to take any chances.
The truth is, I basically didn't watch the Beijing Olympics at all. I thought that perhaps I was no longer a fan of the sport, that I had outgrown it or something. But a year later, after watching the 2009 Track and Field World Championships, I realized I was still a fan of track and field, but no longer a fan of the Olympics. Too much hype, too much jingoism, too many sports, too many dignitaries, too many flags, too many mascots -- and too much money at stake before, during, and after.
So this week, leading up to the vote in Copenhagen to award the 2016 games, I found myself taken aback by the parade of people who felt this "competition" to host the games was so important. For several days, every time I turned on the radio there were people being interviewed about which city, which country, which continent was most deserving.
In the end, Chicago was eliminated from consideration in the first round of final voting, receiving only 18 votes of support, behind Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro. It turned out that despite the lobbying efforts of the first family, Chicago wasn't the second city, it was the fourth. Ouch!
Well, good try and all that. And good luck to Rio, whose government has pledged 14 billion dollars to prepare for the games, which, we presume will include trying to address the city's high crime rate. I'm sure we can all look forward to years of stories about the challenges of staging the games in Rio. So far, London seems to be getting a free pass (as a former host city, maybe it's immune from that kind of coverage).
As for the athletes, I wish them all well with their Olympic dreams, but I also know they'll go on training and competing in or out of the spotlight. As for me, I couldn't care less who has the games of 2020... or 2056, when it will take an entire continent to host all 182 separate Olympic sports, including boogie boarding, Frisbee golf, and lawn darts. The competition to host the Olympics doesn't interest me.
I competition on the track WOULD interest me, if they would only show more of it.
I used to love the whole idea of the Olympics. They seemed special, suffused with seriousness of purpose and immense historical significance. But little by little, I became disillusioned and cynical.
There was Munich. There were the boycotts. There were the scandals involving bribery of IOC members.
And as time went on, there was the increasingly poor (in the U.S.) TV coverage of the Olympics, as networks who had paid billions for the right to do so focused more and more on selling human interest stories, primarily involving U.S. athletes deemed to have star power, and less and less on sport. While I'm not inclined to give the networks a break, I'll admit that the Olympics have become ridiculously diverse and virtually uncoverable. There are so many sports in so many locales that you can almost forgive NBC for wanting to turn Beijing into the Michael Phelps show. Notice, I said "almost."
As for track and field, well, there was always plenty of coverage of the sprints. And every once in a while, there might be a few laps of a distance race sandwiched in among commercials. During the Beijing Olympics, I read about and followed the athletics competition online, and then would occasionally tune in twelve hours later to see what races NBC would feature on their evening broadcast. Of course, one could look forward to many hours of teasers for these events, which always seemed to occur in the final half hour of coverage, ensuring that I would also see as many commercials as possible. But given how much the network had paid to broadcast the games, they didn't want to take any chances.
The truth is, I basically didn't watch the Beijing Olympics at all. I thought that perhaps I was no longer a fan of the sport, that I had outgrown it or something. But a year later, after watching the 2009 Track and Field World Championships, I realized I was still a fan of track and field, but no longer a fan of the Olympics. Too much hype, too much jingoism, too many sports, too many dignitaries, too many flags, too many mascots -- and too much money at stake before, during, and after.
So this week, leading up to the vote in Copenhagen to award the 2016 games, I found myself taken aback by the parade of people who felt this "competition" to host the games was so important. For several days, every time I turned on the radio there were people being interviewed about which city, which country, which continent was most deserving.
In the end, Chicago was eliminated from consideration in the first round of final voting, receiving only 18 votes of support, behind Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro. It turned out that despite the lobbying efforts of the first family, Chicago wasn't the second city, it was the fourth. Ouch!
Well, good try and all that. And good luck to Rio, whose government has pledged 14 billion dollars to prepare for the games, which, we presume will include trying to address the city's high crime rate. I'm sure we can all look forward to years of stories about the challenges of staging the games in Rio. So far, London seems to be getting a free pass (as a former host city, maybe it's immune from that kind of coverage).
As for the athletes, I wish them all well with their Olympic dreams, but I also know they'll go on training and competing in or out of the spotlight. As for me, I couldn't care less who has the games of 2020... or 2056, when it will take an entire continent to host all 182 separate Olympic sports, including boogie boarding, Frisbee golf, and lawn darts. The competition to host the Olympics doesn't interest me.
I competition on the track WOULD interest me, if they would only show more of it.
January 02, 2011
Barefoot Boys
(I began writing this back in February 2010 when the media couldn't get enough of McDougall, Lieberman, and barefoot running in general. But for some reason, I put it aside. By now, the debate is dying down a bit, but every so often it pops up again (as it always will). Anyway, here's my two cents...)
"Oh for boyhood’s painless play,
Sleep that wakes in laughing day,
Health that mocks the doctor’s rules,
Knowledge never learned of schools...
...
All too soon these feet must hide
In the prison cells of pride,
Lose the freedom of the sod,
Like a colt’s for work be shod,
Made to treat the mills of toil,
Up and down in ceaseless moil:
Happy if their track be found
Never on forbidden ground;
Happy if they sink not in
Quick and treacherous sands of sin.
Ah! that thou couldst know thy joy,
Ere it passes, barefoot boy!"
- from "The Barefoot Boy," by John Greenleaf Whittier
For many months, I have been trying to figure out why so many people -- so many non-runners -- have embraced the theory that running barefoot is the cure for all that ails the modern runner. I was bemused when Chris McDougall's book "Born to Run" became a best-seller, and mildly shocked when dozens of non-running friends and colleagues wanted to talk to me about it. (Full disclosure: I have read only excerpts from the book.)
Then, in January 2010, Daniel Lieberman, a professor in the Department Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, and several colleagues rebooted the conversation with a paper in the journal Nature titled "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners." Lieberman, et al. found that the habitually barefoot runners tended to land on the fore-foot or mid-foot (we knew that already) and generated smaller collision forces on impact than shod rear-foot strikers. The paper also raised the possibility, but did not present evidence, that such forefoot and midfoot gaits might help protect the feet and lower limbs from the common impact-related injuries that plague contemporary runners.
Lately, WGBH Boston has been running a promo for its news coverage that features a reporter talking about Lieberman's study. Almost every morning I hear it, posing the question of whether running barefoot is better for the body than running in shoes.
I'm not surprised that runners would be interested in the science that informs choices about what, if anything, should be worn on the feet. From my personal experience, most dedicated runners are curious about anything that promises to help them improve their times or reduce their injuries. Bounding, plyometrics, form drills, core workouts, cross-training, walking breaks, water running, POSE running, backwards running, Yoga, LSD (no, not the hallucinogen) -- if we think it might work, we'll try it, and if it helps us run faster, we'll swear by it. For dedicated runners who are thinking about trying barefoot training, let me recommend some links to good informationabout the pleasures and pains, risks and benefits of such training:
* Ambling Barefoot (blog post from Dr. Bob Chasen)
* Web Site of Harvard University Skeletal Biology Lab (D. Lieberman et al.)
* Should You Be Running Barefoot? - Amby Burfoot Column in Runner's World
* Barefoot Running - New Evidence, Same Debate (Science of Sport)
But all of the above doesn't explain why recreational runners and non-runners are so taken by the barefoot movement. The general pubic has never cared so much about what we runners do. So what's the big deal about running without shoes?
One explanation is that people always love a story about how the conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong. McDougall, in particular, is merciless in skewering the shoe companies for selling us ever more advanced shoe models that, he claims, contribute to more running injuries, not fewer. I believe he describes modern running shoes as "coffins for the feet." I'll bet THAT phrase caused some consternation at Nike's Corporate Headquarters.
But there's another explanation for the popular interest, and that is that this isn't a story about running, only, but about the evils of our culture and civilization. Reading some of the pro-barefoot manifestos out there, it's clear that back-to-barefoot is another way of saying "back-to-nature."
Here's Chris McDougall:
"In the hills of Mexico, a tribe of Indians carries an ancient secret: a diet and fitness regimen that has allowed them to outrun death and disease. We set out to discover how the rest of us can catch up."
Does that phrase -- "outrun death and disease" -- bother anyone else? I know it's just journalistic hyperbole, but barefoot or not, no one outruns death and disease. Our fate is to grow old and die and shedding our shoes won't reverse the process, at least not for very long.
Ah, but McDougall is really talking about something more than longevity; he's talking about a kind of primitive ideal that defies the conventions and expectations of modern society and office-bound respectability. To me it seems that this enthusiasm for the Tarahumara and their barefoot running is fueled by a desire to throw off the trappings of what Freud called Civilization and Its Discontents. Further, it is a desire to be that barefoot boy of the poem, and experience that symbolic return to boyhood. Yes, I wrote "boyhood," not "childhood." Have you noticed how almost all the people promoting the benefits of the unshod lifestyle are men? Do you wonder why women aren't jumping on back-to-basics bandwagon?
I wonder if the adjectives "primitive" and "barefoot" seem quite so idyllic to the gender responsible for bearing and caring for the kids.
And I expect that those adjectives aren't associated with longer life and better health by everyone -- I would guess that runners from countries where shoes are a luxury aren't quite as sentimental about the barefoot experience.
As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of the hype around barefoot running. But I have to admit that McDougall et al. have performed at least one valuable service to the greater running community: they have pointed out that not all of the techno-centric innovations of modern footwear have been good to athletes. A little less shoe is often a good thing, and I'm happy to bury the idea that the right shoe will make all your problems disappear. I don't care what they say -- the ground is firm and gravity brings us all back to earth with a thud.
That is our fate, and that is the fate of all philosophies that promise to take us back to "boyhood's painless play."
"Oh for boyhood’s painless play,
Sleep that wakes in laughing day,
Health that mocks the doctor’s rules,
Knowledge never learned of schools...
...
All too soon these feet must hide
In the prison cells of pride,
Lose the freedom of the sod,
Like a colt’s for work be shod,
Made to treat the mills of toil,
Up and down in ceaseless moil:
Happy if their track be found
Never on forbidden ground;
Happy if they sink not in
Quick and treacherous sands of sin.
Ah! that thou couldst know thy joy,
Ere it passes, barefoot boy!"
- from "The Barefoot Boy," by John Greenleaf Whittier
For many months, I have been trying to figure out why so many people -- so many non-runners -- have embraced the theory that running barefoot is the cure for all that ails the modern runner. I was bemused when Chris McDougall's book "Born to Run" became a best-seller, and mildly shocked when dozens of non-running friends and colleagues wanted to talk to me about it. (Full disclosure: I have read only excerpts from the book.)
Then, in January 2010, Daniel Lieberman, a professor in the Department Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, and several colleagues rebooted the conversation with a paper in the journal Nature titled "Foot strike patterns and collision forces in habitually barefoot versus shod runners." Lieberman, et al. found that the habitually barefoot runners tended to land on the fore-foot or mid-foot (we knew that already) and generated smaller collision forces on impact than shod rear-foot strikers. The paper also raised the possibility, but did not present evidence, that such forefoot and midfoot gaits might help protect the feet and lower limbs from the common impact-related injuries that plague contemporary runners.
Lately, WGBH Boston has been running a promo for its news coverage that features a reporter talking about Lieberman's study. Almost every morning I hear it, posing the question of whether running barefoot is better for the body than running in shoes.
I'm not surprised that runners would be interested in the science that informs choices about what, if anything, should be worn on the feet. From my personal experience, most dedicated runners are curious about anything that promises to help them improve their times or reduce their injuries. Bounding, plyometrics, form drills, core workouts, cross-training, walking breaks, water running, POSE running, backwards running, Yoga, LSD (no, not the hallucinogen) -- if we think it might work, we'll try it, and if it helps us run faster, we'll swear by it. For dedicated runners who are thinking about trying barefoot training, let me recommend some links to good informationabout the pleasures and pains, risks and benefits of such training:
* Ambling Barefoot (blog post from Dr. Bob Chasen)
* Web Site of Harvard University Skeletal Biology Lab (D. Lieberman et al.)
* Should You Be Running Barefoot? - Amby Burfoot Column in Runner's World
* Barefoot Running - New Evidence, Same Debate (Science of Sport)
But all of the above doesn't explain why recreational runners and non-runners are so taken by the barefoot movement. The general pubic has never cared so much about what we runners do. So what's the big deal about running without shoes?
One explanation is that people always love a story about how the conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong. McDougall, in particular, is merciless in skewering the shoe companies for selling us ever more advanced shoe models that, he claims, contribute to more running injuries, not fewer. I believe he describes modern running shoes as "coffins for the feet." I'll bet THAT phrase caused some consternation at Nike's Corporate Headquarters.
But there's another explanation for the popular interest, and that is that this isn't a story about running, only, but about the evils of our culture and civilization. Reading some of the pro-barefoot manifestos out there, it's clear that back-to-barefoot is another way of saying "back-to-nature."
Here's Chris McDougall:
"In the hills of Mexico, a tribe of Indians carries an ancient secret: a diet and fitness regimen that has allowed them to outrun death and disease. We set out to discover how the rest of us can catch up."
Does that phrase -- "outrun death and disease" -- bother anyone else? I know it's just journalistic hyperbole, but barefoot or not, no one outruns death and disease. Our fate is to grow old and die and shedding our shoes won't reverse the process, at least not for very long.
Ah, but McDougall is really talking about something more than longevity; he's talking about a kind of primitive ideal that defies the conventions and expectations of modern society and office-bound respectability. To me it seems that this enthusiasm for the Tarahumara and their barefoot running is fueled by a desire to throw off the trappings of what Freud called Civilization and Its Discontents. Further, it is a desire to be that barefoot boy of the poem, and experience that symbolic return to boyhood. Yes, I wrote "boyhood," not "childhood." Have you noticed how almost all the people promoting the benefits of the unshod lifestyle are men? Do you wonder why women aren't jumping on back-to-basics bandwagon?
I wonder if the adjectives "primitive" and "barefoot" seem quite so idyllic to the gender responsible for bearing and caring for the kids.
And I expect that those adjectives aren't associated with longer life and better health by everyone -- I would guess that runners from countries where shoes are a luxury aren't quite as sentimental about the barefoot experience.
As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of the hype around barefoot running. But I have to admit that McDougall et al. have performed at least one valuable service to the greater running community: they have pointed out that not all of the techno-centric innovations of modern footwear have been good to athletes. A little less shoe is often a good thing, and I'm happy to bury the idea that the right shoe will make all your problems disappear. I don't care what they say -- the ground is firm and gravity brings us all back to earth with a thud.
That is our fate, and that is the fate of all philosophies that promise to take us back to "boyhood's painless play."
January 01, 2011
Resolutions for 2011
(Inspired by my Resolutions post from Jan 1, 2006)...
In 2011...
I resolve to take strength training more seriously, realizing that the only way to age gracefully as a runner is to stay strong...
I will recycle at least 10 pairs of old running shoes...as a start...
I resolve to commute to work without a car more than once this summer...
I will try not to become impatient when people ask me barefoot running...
I resolve not to become obsessed with what the stopwatch recorded, so long as the effort was there...
I resolve to continue ignoring my Facebook status for months at a time -- unless a miracle occurs and I finally do something interesting...
If my body holds up, I will do more than one 20-mile run this year...
And I will not forget that I still haven't crossed "100-mile week" off my bucket list...
I resolve to make a better effort to reduce the number of typos in my blog posts by re-reading them BEFORE I post...
I will stop apologizing to young fast guys for being an old slow guy -- hey, fellas, enjoy it while you can...
I will remember T.S. Eliot's words: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time..."
...and with those words ringing in my ears, I resolve to start some new, crazy, impractical running project just to discover what it's like, and whether I can get through it with my mind and body intact.
In 2011...
I resolve to take strength training more seriously, realizing that the only way to age gracefully as a runner is to stay strong...
I will recycle at least 10 pairs of old running shoes...as a start...
I resolve to commute to work without a car more than once this summer...
I will try not to become impatient when people ask me barefoot running...
I resolve not to become obsessed with what the stopwatch recorded, so long as the effort was there...
I resolve to continue ignoring my Facebook status for months at a time -- unless a miracle occurs and I finally do something interesting...
If my body holds up, I will do more than one 20-mile run this year...
And I will not forget that I still haven't crossed "100-mile week" off my bucket list...
I resolve to make a better effort to reduce the number of typos in my blog posts by re-reading them BEFORE I post...
I will stop apologizing to young fast guys for being an old slow guy -- hey, fellas, enjoy it while you can...
I will remember T.S. Eliot's words: "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time..."
...and with those words ringing in my ears, I resolve to start some new, crazy, impractical running project just to discover what it's like, and whether I can get through it with my mind and body intact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
