Impmk2

South Africa 3 down for 5 runs. This might not even go to day 3.

Will be interesting how this plays out. The major objection doesn't seem to be the temporary price caps, more the code of conduct which gives the government power to override contracts and set domestic market supply share and pricing in perpetuity. The gas industry says it'll kill investment. Otoh the domestic market is comparatively small, and there's still plenty of $$ to be made at $12/gj - they're selling to Japan at $9.

Hmm I assumed NZ might have the same kind of system but on looking into it seems somewhat unique to here. Stems from an independant tribunal which was apparently set up in the 1950s to deal with settling workplace law / disputes, and also has the power to set minimum wages across industries (currently guise is the fair work comission).

Think I'd proposed tying brackets to median wage rather than inflation (how tightly / loosely tbd), in any case there has to be a better way to deal with bracket creep rather than giving extremely well off people a big tax cut every couple election cycles and using it as an excuse. I mean ideally government would deal with it responsibly but that isn't on the cards. How about some sort of biennial independent review and changing the brackets depending on economic conditions? I know government would be loathe to give up any power, but they do it when it comes to setting minimum wages and award rates, which also impact tax income. Aren't pensions here indexed?? Isn't a small part of government spending. I mean I'm probably not helping my point in that we struggle to get on top of the deficit, though that seems to be more a case of using projected surpluses to give tax breaks.

lies and slander. Re 120k. Complete bullshit. And the biggest beneficiaries aren't on people on 'only' 120k as the largest reduction is on dollars after that point. People on 180k will be very happy though. Usual crap execuses coming up about bracket creep. Surely we could just peg tax brackets to median income if that was the concern, rather than just giving money to people who are already doing very well.

I've tried programs focussed on a mix of faster runs. Never worked for me at all. But as soon as I started putting in high volume with only 10-20% quick my 5k times plummeted by minutes. From my reading that isn't at all unusual.

I always found raw volume to be far more important in running than speed work. When I was doing frequent, slow (<75% max hr, can easily chat while running pace) runs in marathon training I got damn fast with only 1 interval session a week. Consistency and slowly ramping up (+10% volume per week) is the key. Running is almost entirely aerobic and that's best trained by lots (and lots) of running at low intensity in my experience.

So after a decade in research I've hung up my lab coat and have moved into a support role. Basically managing a small team which looks after the common research facilities, ensures we're keeping up with compliance, equipment maintenance etc etc etc. Plus side of this is I'm now in a permanent role rather than bouncing from contract to contract. Anyway one of the first things I'm involved with is recruiting to fill a role in the team, and we have a couple candidates our selection panel just can't split and I seem to have the deciding vote. One of them is internal and I know them pretty well, the other is external. My gut is really to go with the devil I know, though I'm afraid I'm giving the external candidate short shrift. If I'm being honest i thought the external candidate interviewed better. However I know the internal candidate could easily do the job, and importantly I believe they'll hang around for a few years to gain experience, whereas I'm not sure at all with the external. Decisions decisions.

Have stuck with running a couple times a week, 3-5km. In about 25min/5k shape now, which feels terribly slow given past form. But not sure if I can be bothered to put the time in to get any quicker.

So I got inspired by the marathon talk and went for a couple runs this last week, my first this year. Nothing too long - approx 3km (2 miles) each. I'm predictably slow, my first run at 6min/km felt ok, the 2nd at a little faster than 5min/km felt like the absolute limit. I was pretty sore for the couple days after the first run, though not so much the 2nd for some reason even though it was much harder. I'm feeling like my cardio could come back pretty quickly if I stuck with it.

You really do get used to 2-3hr training runs at an easy pace. They're a very necessary part of marathon training. Used to be able to run an easy 25-30k on Saturday and still be good for an interval session on Tuesday and mid-week 10k each way to and from work on Wednesday. 3hrs+ you start getting a high potential for injury though. 1.5hrs+ at pace is a completely different story. I could never train properly for a couple weeks after racing a half. All this running talk makes me want to put the weights down and get back out on the road.

Wouldn't stress too much over a couple miles at this stage. Better to get to the start line as healthy as you can. Race day adrenalin and determination will get you to the finish line on the day.

Goodluck! Take it very easy. 3:15 is super long for a training run.

I found training up to about 30-32km to be pretty easy. But beyond that hurts a lot, it takes a long while to condition the body to be able to run with completely depleted glycogen stores, just on fat metabolism and blood sugar. It really is a different ball game.

It's certainly possible to train from nothing to a marathon in less than a year. I'm not sure it'd be a great idea though. If you're coming from no / a very low base I think it's a pretty good idea to spend a few months running 5-10kms to get the legs properly conditioned, then slowly ramp it up to half distance and try a few to get a feel for running for a 1.5+ hours at a time. From there - for me training from half distance to full marathon took about 14 weeks. Though at that stage I already had a very solid base from a couple years running and already knew what 30km felt like. Half the battle is not getting injured (I did not manage to get to the start line completely injury free either of the times I ran it). So taking it slow, steady and giving it a year or 2 to really condition the legs to prep for those 70km+ weeks at peak training is a pretty good idea imo. Of course YMMV. I had the time, really wanted to push myself and see what I could do if I put in some really hard miles. If you're just aiming to finish you could do it far, far faster. Not to take anything away from that - it's still a big achievement, and taking the pressure off is probably the best idea for the first one at least. I'm also sure there's just the odd genetic freak* who could train with no injury and just go out and destroy my times without issue. *alternatively teenager / early 20s - I was never particularly gifted at sports, and I'm near 40 and really feel it these days.

Agreed, we live opposite a popular park for dogs. The number of times we've been walking our girls on the opposite side of the road and an off leash dog has come sprinting at them completely uncontrolled over the road to say hello... Only takes a car coming at the wrong time.... That's quite aside from other offleash dogs running up to them and starting a dog fight and one of them ending up dead. Keep control of your animal. I'm not a fan of off leash dogs in (most) public spaces.

Australian here. Though the first 5 years of my life were in the UK. Always find it fascinating how Americans generally identify by state, whereas the rest of the world generally by country.