Sandy's Study: Nice race, shame about the body

The same time will mean different things to different people. So 58 minutes, for example, could be reason for elation as someone's first 10K under the one-hour-mark, or as a new half-marathon world record for the likes of Zersenay Tadesse.

I say this because other people I know will no doubt say my time today was respectable enough. But for me, today's 51 minutes 54 seconds is my slowest *ever* time for a 10K race. By several minutes. So in that regard, I'm not exactly where I want to be. My first ever 10K (after about 10-15 years of fairly consistent abuse to my body, including heavy smoking... and then resulting weight gain after giving up the smokes..!) took about 49 or 50 minutes in 2005. By Spring 2010 I was running 10Ks in nearer 42 minutes. But obviously injury and age have combined and damn it is tough to come back!!

However.... in the interests of balance, a few further considerations. First, for most of the past year I couldn't have done a 10K race at all - at times I couldn't even have walked it comfortably. Plus, this was a tough course, lots of climbing and uneven trails, and most definitely not a PB course.

It was also a VERY nice course. Lovely forest trails and spectacular views across the valley to the hills on the other side. And great to take part in my first club championship race of the year! Great atmosphere, good turnout and some excellent results for fellow club members, lots of tasty cake and sandwiches at the post-race spread. Add to that a whisky glass and a miniature Macallan 10 year old in the goody bag (which, to be honest, would be enough to get me back to this race on their own) and the fact I've lost nearly half a stone over the past 2 months since I was able to pick up my training properly again, and you pretty much have *all* the many reasons why I love running. So from that point of view, I'm exactly where I want to be. More of the same, please.