Late last week, after I turned in all my intellectual chores for the semester, I realized that, for the next 15 weeks, I will not have a 50-lb. backpack to lug all over creation, as I did this last semester.  Oh yes, hooray – but the lugging of that 50-lb. backpack is more than likely the root cause of the loss of 20 pounds since January.  And that ain’t bad, let me tell y’all.  But this means that I have to replace my primary form of exercise during the academic year.  With actual exercise.  But it’s finally spring, I finally have some free time and that means I can actually do things other than read beaucoup de phonologie ou syntaxe and get out there and move.  And getting out there and moving is what I’ve started.

I’d thought to start small, but it turns out that lugging a 50-lb. backpack all over creation is excellent for building up endurance, and my intial workout of taking 5km at just below a jog is exercise, but well below what I can feasibly do.  So, since I’m all about pushing myself, I need to torque it up just a bit.  Which brings me to the slightly existential question:  faster?  or farther?

If I go faster (running instead of walking), it might be a short-run (no pun intended) improvement, but will it really get me to where I want to go?  And last night, I heard an alarming clicking noise in my left knee.  That said, I had the opportunity to run a little bit yesterday, and it felt great, almost like flying.

However, if I go farther first, I don’t necessarily eliminate the possibility that I can, eventually, pick up the pace; when I do, I will be prepared to do so much more, right?

It seems a little metaphoric, this debate, because it relates to what I’m doing graduate-school wise.  This masters’ program may not be the most obvious next step; but I think it will push me further down the road than any of the other options I considered.

As long as my left knee doesn’t crap out.

Advertisements