Cool Running :: Sub 20-Minute 5-K

> home > community > discussion forums > mainstream racing > sub 20-minute 5-k (Page 20)

| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: sue, Warrior1971

Sub 20-Minute 5-K

Topic is 33 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

> next newest topic | > next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Sub 20-Minute 5-K
Dakota Ridgerunner Cool Runner	posted Mar-25-2007 10:25 AM quote: Originally posted by kgdmusic1: I stumbled onto an article that had researched proof that if you run around 6% faster than your average pace in your 1st mile then you will do better than running your average pace (or slower) your 1st mile. Kendall, that's interesting. Can you link to the research or the Men's Fitness article? That does seem to fly in the face of everything I've heard, that says even splits or slightly negative splits result in the fastest times for a given runner. For a 19:59 5k, you'll need to run an average of 6:26 per mile (as we all know too well in this thread!). 6% of that pace is 23 seconds, so according to your quote above, the best strategy would be to run the first mile in 6:03. TChuck, you mentioned this strategy might be good for elites, but not for the rest of us. Did you base that statement on research, or just a gut feeling? _________________________ My Profile Sub-40 10k Blog IP: Logged
Tchuck Cool Runner	posted Mar-25-2007 02:55 PM I don't have any research but I do feel an elite or I should say high mileage, highly fit runner can manage 3% over goal pace early and still race as well as even pacing. They can recover and stay strong after a bit fast of a start. You will also hear some competitive, fit runners who do race this way effectively. They feel the need to go out with the pack and sometimes this is a bit fast (sometimes not), but then what does it matter? It becomes a race then vs. the others and not so much based on the time per se, just beating the other runner (s). The more fit will be able to recover best and hold pace better than the less fit. We average athletes just can't recover from a fast start like the high mileage extremely fit runners. Or at least most of us. ------------------ My Profile IP: Logged
mainers Cool Runner	posted Mar-25-2007 07:24 PM my fastest 5ks have always been when i've gone with people faster than me and tried to hold on as long as possible. if you've trained hard enough for the race and are in good enough shape you can definitely run a fast 5k if your first mile is slightly faster than the rest. Obviously you can't just go out at a ridiculous pace but if you're within Tchuck's guidelines it is definitely a method to consider. hold on as long as possible to your early pace in the second mile and then give it all you've got for the last mile. a more painful way of getting your best possible time than more even pacing but definitiely worth a shot the same cannot be said for a 10k. holding on for 5 miles after too fast a first mile is a whole different matter! ------------------ My Profile IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Mar-25-2007 07:45 PM "I stumbled onto an article that had researched proof that if you run around 6% faster than your average pace in your 1st mile then you will do better than running your average pace (or slower) your 1st mile." Tell that to Haile Gebrselassie. If you ever looked his splits on way to has many world records at 5k/10k you would see an uncanny display of even pace running. I don't believe that research. It must be crap data. Most fast times are run with even pacing. Did you happen to see Ryan Hall set the American HM record? He just kept running one 4:33 after another until he crossed the finish line. For someone to go out at 6:03 pace when they are trying to average 6:26 is ridiculous--a sure fire way to run a terrible race. Not that I'm going to throw any stones at anyone for doing it. I've gone out too fast more times than I care to remember, although it wasn't planned, and results were usually no good. Hammering the first mile often works as a tactic to discourage an opponent but will never help someone run a faster race. [This message has been edited by Jim24315 (edited Mar-25-2007).] IP: Logged
Black Cat Member	posted Mar-25-2007 07:50 PM I just found this thread and it's been a great read! Add me to the list of sub-20min hopefuls. I've only run two 5Ks, and the better of my times was only 21:30. However, I'm hopeful I can get somewhat quicker because I managed that time on about 12 mpw. I upped the mileage last summer in training for a half marathon and was amazed what a positive effect the 10 mile long runs had on my shorter workouts. I know that's probably painfully obvious to more seasoned runners, but I'm relatively new to all of this so forgive me :-) I'm looking at some 5K races this spring, so hopefully I can get closer to the 20 min mark. Good luck to everyone else who's doing the same! Neil. IP: Logged
MichiganFlyer Cool Runner	posted Mar-26-2007 06:57 AM If you run your 1st mile what seems TOO FAST and then hang on to break a record...all it means is that you ran your 2nd and 3rd miles too slow. So say you ran your 1st mile at 6:03 and your final 2 miles at 6:35 pace...You should have ran all miles at 6:20 and you would feel much better at the end. My 1st mile is usually my fastest and that makes sense but not by much maybe 10 seconds tops. The 2nd mile and most of 3rd mile I am holdind on, With 1/4 mile to go that is where you take the biggest chunk out of your time. That last 1/4 mile should be your fastest quarter of the race..Around 1:30 or faster if you can manage. If you are running the 1st mile too fast and holding on I can imagine the fear at the race starting line of doing that too many races in a row. The best way to run is to calm yourself at the start line...dont make yourself think you are gonna have a heart attack trying to finish the race after a killer 1st mile. If you can calm yourself at the start you can subtract a lot of beats per minute off your heart in the 1st mile ...thats my thinking anyhow. My 4 mile PR 6:24, 6:24, 6:24, 6:03. IP: Logged
kgdmusic1 Cool Runner	posted Mar-31-2007 10:46 AM About going out at 6% faster: All I know is that it has worked for me twice now in the past 2 months. Sure enough, another article on it just appeared in the May Runner's World issue....funny how that happens. For me, in the middle of a 5k, one before even reading about the research - I just so happened to run with a faster runner the 1st mile 6% faster.... Anyway, I'm finding a common "feeling/strategy" in my 5k's now that I'm doing more of them - KEEPING pace and SLOWING DOWN slightly is MUCH EASIER than SPEEDING UP. Therefore, I simply try to run the 1st mile faster, slow down a little in the second mile, keep that pace, and sprint the last 200m. A lot of people don't have the fast twich muscles that I have so it probably wouldn't work for them. I ran a 53sec. 400m in High School. Does anyone else here have that 'delemma?' (short distance track runner in HS trying to run longer races later in life?) In my last 10 races - 5k, 10k, AND 1/2 marathon, I've sprinted the last 100-200m at AT LEAST a 5:00-5:30 pace. Maybe I simply have too much gas in the tank? Don't know..... Food for thought but I know alot of people aren't in that situation.... IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Mar-31-2007 02:02 PM Kendall, You say that it "worked" for you last time. How do you know that you wouldn't have had an even faster final time if you'd went out easier the first mile? I think you ran faster because you continue to get more fit. As for having a lot left at the end, you have very good speed, and therefore will probably always have a good finishing kick. However, if you have too much left it could be because you lose concentration during the middle stages. It's a common thing for runners, and has probably happened to most of us at one time or another. I'll keep reminding anyone who thinks that going out this fast (6% faster than what you plan to average) is the way to go, that virturally all mid and long distance world records are run at close to even pace. Why do you think that is? I might try to find it again, but I saw the splits of a couple of Gebrselassie's 5k and 10k world records somewhere, and it was amazing how even a pace he ran. The 2nd half of his races were run in virtually the exact same time as the first. When Ryan Hall set the U.S. record in half marathon a couple months ago, he ran one 4:33 mile after another from start to finish. Btw, most serious runners nowdays jokingly refer to Runners' World as "Jogger's World". You'd be much better off listening to your coach than that stuff. IP: Logged
Dakota Ridgerunner Cool Runner	posted Mar-31-2007 03:41 PM Ok, I plan to go for my first sub-20 5000 meters on the track tomorrow. My main running goal for this year is a sub-40 10k, and I really need to assess my fitness in order to set proper training paces for the next 8 weeks. Plus, it would be a nice confidence booster to break 20 in the 5k before attempting to do it twice in a row in a 10k. My plan is to divide the time trial into 25x200m. I will try to run the first 10 at 48 seconds each (20:00 pace), then try the next 15 at 47 seconds, which would put me at 19:45 by the finish. My backup plan is to just stay at 48 seconds per 200 as long as possible, and try and break 20 minutes in the final meters. I have no idea what kind of fitness I'm in right now, so this should be interesting. I could completely blow up or barely make it, for all I know. I'm actually kind of nervous! ------------------ My User Profile Sub-40 10k Blog IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Mar-31-2007 07:21 PM Dakota, Sounds like a great plan, for all the reasons stated. However, if you haven't done a time trial in a while I will remind you that it's a lot tougher than doing it in a race. It's easy to start losing concentration after a few laps when you are out there by yourself. Maybe all the split tending will help keep you focused I'm curious to hear how it goes IP: Logged
Tchuck Cool Runner	posted Mar-31-2007 10:08 PM Dakota, Prepare for it like a race. Set a time. Do your warm up mile or two w/ some striders. Few stretches and visualize you are in a race. I agree with Jim that it will be a challenge. You will always perform a bit better in a race than a time trial just because of adrenaline and "the race", catching a person, holding off a person, seeing the finish line etc. These little things help improve one's time. Either way, it will be a good test for you. Nice to break it up because it will prevent you from taking off too fast if you come in fast at first 200 meters - you will know to slow down. More than likely your first 200M will be fast. Keep that in mind and don't go out the a bat out of heck. ------------------ Todd IP: Logged
KudzuRunner Cool Runner	posted Mar-31-2007 10:54 PM It's interesting how the same issues keep coming up again and again--and always as thought this is the first time certain arguments have been made. I started a thread on this issue last summer and took a lot of heat. Basically I said, "Why NOT go out at what seems like a suicidal pace? Why NOT go out really fast, breakthrough fast, and then just......HOLD ON??" I offered many plausible reasons why this might, for certain runners, be a good, smart strategy. Most of them boiled down to the fact that most sub-elite runners are still getting in shape, to some extent; and still learning what they're made of--which is to say, still learning how to manage pain in the most effective way. Some of us don't realize just how much we're capable of. So going out fast may just force us into a new and bracing situation--particularly if we're pace-nerds and are very, very sure of precisely what our "best possible pace" is. We may just discover a) that we've been underestimating that pace; b) that we're capable of taking more pain than we realize; or c) that we race better when we focus on racing, mano a mano, rather than pacing. I made all these arguments because I've long known that I'm a very fast finisher, one who does well when I warm into the race, then really really REALLY lower the hammer in the final mile. In one three-mile race back in August 2005, for example, I ran 6:42s for the first two and finished in a 6:05. I'm much better at taking pain late in the race; and, quite frankly, 6:42s on that warm Mississippi August day was about right. But I did have that fast finish in me. OK. So I made the counterintuitive (for me) argument about the efficacy of, occasionally and with strategic intent, going out "much too fast" and trying to hang on. I took a lot of heat. I made a lot of good arguments. Then, in June 2006 at Thunder on Water, a Grenada, MS 5 mile race, I tried it out. I decided to go out with my AG competition, a guy named Mark Lipking, and see what happened. I wore a HR monitor, because I was curious about the physiology, too. I decided to win the race. I went out hard, right on ML's heels, and I was second OA at the one-mile point. The race was o//b on the top of a dam. Absolutely flat, absolutely no tree cover. 80 degrees and sunny. At the one mile point, which I hit at 6:20 (slightly faster than 5K pace) my HR hit 190. (My max is 198). There was no way I was going to maintain that HR for four more miles. The pain was pretty bad. It just wadn't [sic] gonna happen, no matter how much I wanted it to happen. I stabilized at 188 or so and ran the next three miles at 7:07, 7:09, and 7:08. What I discovered is that when you go out at sub-5K pace, especially on a warmer day, you are forced to slow to tempo pace--which you are then forced to run at 5K HR rather than tempo HR. I finished in a 6:40. Hit a new max, for me, of 199 when I crossed the finish line. What did I learn? Well, I learned how good it feels to run up front--an entirely new pleasure for me. But I also learned that there's no such thing as a free lunch, in physiological terms. There's somewhat less of a margin of error than I'd realized. It's important to learn what you've got in you, deep down, and I discovered that. But I also learned that running a fast-starting and painful race, one that results in carrying an anerobic load for the duration and running slower than desired at a given HR, is something any fool can do. Long term result? In mid-fall, I actually won a 5K, running from the front. I wasn't afraid to front run. It wasn't nearly my PR, but I'd developed a bit of fearlessness as a result of my experiment. Longer term result? In late January, on a cold day, I ran a PR 5K, pushing myself harder, in effort-terms, than I'd ever pushed myself before. I didn't do it by going out too fast, but by going out fast and controlled and, beginning on a long downhill at the 1.5 mile point, attacking relentlessly. It's clear that my little experiment against ML the previous June DID bear fruit. It taught me to dig a little deeper, to mix controlled early pacing with something like reckless aggressive abandon later on. So it's all good. It's all a big experiment. There are no hard and fast rules. Apparently foolish experiments may BE foolish, in physiological terms. They may not lead immediately to your fastest race. Yet they may bear unexpected fruit, in unexpected ways, down the line. The bottom line? Never decide that you've got it all figured out. It's always good to try something new from time to time, cut a new dance step, take a cue from those around you, risk a little. IP: Logged
Dakota Ridgerunner Cool Runner	posted Apr-01-2007 12:40 AM Nice post, Kudzu. I enjoyed that. It reminded me of when I used to rock climb. There were times when I'd be losing strength -- hands opening up on a hold, forearms searing, not seeing how to make the next move, looking at a big fall. It was so much easier to just yell "Take!" to my belayer instead of risking the fall. But then there were those climbs where I told myself that no matter what, I would go for it. I would make the next move or fall trying. Those were the times I discovered my true capabilities. I'd often surprise myself by trying an improbable sequence that somehow worked. I haven't run enough to know, but it sounds like sometimes going for it in a race can pay off, too. But perhaps, as you yourself discovered, not in the way you expected. Tomorrow will not be a day for me to go nuts in the first mile, but sometime I may try it just for kicks. ------------------ My User Profile Sub-40 10k Blog IP: Logged
tuscaloosarunner Cool Runner	posted Apr-01-2007 05:47 AM quote: Originally posted by mainers: my fastest 5ks have always been when i've gone with people faster than me... Mainers: At local 5ks, who exactly would this be. 15s would be the winning time where i'm from... ------------------ My User Profile IP: Logged
coachburke14 Cool Runner	posted Apr-01-2007 09:56 AM Well yesterday has my first 5k of the spring, the Haddonfield Running Co.Adrenaline Run in Haddonfield NJ. I needed 33sec to break 20min. My training has been going well so I felt I could have a chance but you just don't know when it's the 1st race of the season. I new it would be a fast race because there were a lot of good club runners there. I got off to a good start coming across the 1st mi in 6:35 & felt good. I held back a little so I wouldn't burn out. I really went for it in the last 1/2 mi but came up short. I looked up as I crossed & the clock said 20:07, although the official time posted was 20:09. Still felt I ran well, maybe next time I'll cut that 10sec. off. Burke IP: Logged
mainers Cool Runner	posted Apr-01-2007 11:56 AM Tusca my 5k pr was set in London when I lived in the UK. Local races there I was lucky to be top 30 overall. There are a few people here who run low 15s in my local races and then there seems to be a big gap back to the high 16s people. I get stuck in the middle it seems running on my own often!! IP: Logged
bpoole99 Member	posted Apr-01-2007 12:28 PM I just saw this topic, and thought it was interesting. I worked on breaking 20:00 for nearly a year. In Oct, 2006 I just missed breaking it by finishing in 20:00 flat at the Susan Komen race in St Pete, FL. I then started focusing on training for the WDW Half Marathon in January. I did not end up breaking 20:00 until Feb 2007, when I shattered it with a 19:14. Based on my speedwork in the last couple of weeks, I now feel pretty strongly that I can run about 18:40. I'm not sure whether the 20 minute thing was mental barrier or whether the half marathon training moved me off of a training plateau, but suddenly a 20:00 5k doesn't seem so daunting.... Good luck to everyone working on this goal. [This message has been edited by bpoole99 (edited Apr-01-2007).] IP: Logged
Dakota Ridgerunner Cool Runner	posted Apr-01-2007 03:24 PM Well, I tried my 5k time trial this morning at the track and I absolutely blew up at 3000 meters. Here are my 200-meter splits: 1. 47.0 2. 48.2 3. 48.3 4. 47.8 5. 48.3 6. 48.0 7. 48.5 8. 47.5 9. 49.1 10. 47.6 11. 47.9 12. 47.6 13. 47.8 14. 48.3 15. 50.3 16. 2:13.5 17. 1:01.8 18. 54.7 19. 54.4 20. 52.1 21. 52.8 22. 54.8 23. 51.7 24. 54.1 25. 54.1 Here are my 1000-meter splits: 1. 3:59.6 2. 4:00.7 3. 4:01.9 4. 5:56.5 5. 4:27.5 At around 2700 meters I suddenly realized my breathing rate had almost doubled, and I knew I was in trouble. I slowed a few paces, but the damage had long ago been done. Right after 3000 meters, I got the worst side stitch I've ever had, forcing me to a painful walk for the next 200 meters. I jogged for a bit after that, but I had nothing and knew it. My total time was 22:26. This will force me to adjust my training paces. Instead of using an estimated VDOT of 51, I've just been demoted to a VDOT of 48. That's using my 3000-meter time of 12:02. I'd hoped I was in better shape than this. It feels a bit demoralizing. ------------------ My User Profile Sub-40 10k Blog IP: Logged
MaineRunner2001 Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 10:41 AM Dakota - thanks for posting the results of your time trial. I am impressed with the 14 200's at nearly 48 seconds each. It seems you have the feeling of the 20 minute 5K / 40 minute 10K pace down pat. I think that is important. It will help at the start of your race, whether you decide to go out on, above, or below pace. IP: Logged
aurang Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 11:08 AM Dakota, if you can run about 3-4k at 4:00/km in a time trial, you should have a 20-minute 5k in you at a race. IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 11:24 AM Don't get discouraged, Dakota I've been under 20 my last 6 races but have never broken 20:30 doing it solo on the track. I think Aurang is right. If you can do a 3-4k in a trial at 20-min pace, you can go all the way in competition. You'll swear that you couldn't go another K if you had to, but when you put on the number and have the energy of the crowd with you it happens. IP: Logged
tuscaloosarunner Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 11:31 AM quote: Originally posted by aurang: Dakota, if you can run about 3-4k at 4:00/km in a time trial, you should have a 20-minute 5k in you at a race. Agree w/ this. To my mind, you went out too fast. That's a good thing to learn in a time trial; next time, hold back a bit. IP: Logged
Dakota Ridgerunner Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 12:17 PM Thanks, guys. That does make me feel a little better. Although it was helpful for staying right on pace, I think in retrospect, taking splits every 200 meters was too much. I did catch myself breaking stride slightly a few times as I checked my watch. To run my fastest 5k, I definitely need to run more on perceived effort, rather than trying to hit some pre-decided splits. That's what made me blow up (something I've never done before in a 5k). But, the point of this time trial was to break 20 minutes or die trying. I obviously died trying! I think it was good to learn what it feels like to force the pace, and to learn exactly what the consequences are. That's got to be useful, at least. The next 5k race I can reasonably do is April 10. Maybe I'll have another try then... ------------------ My User Profile Sub-40 10k Blog IP: Logged
Tchuck Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 01:39 PM I agree with the above comments also. Did you do a nice warm up with some striders? Also, how were you feeling during those first 3K? In your mind were you feeling that you didn't think you could hold this pace???? It is rare that a switch turns on and suddenly you "die". ------------------ Todd IP: Logged
MichiganFlyer Cool Runner	posted Apr-02-2007 02:12 PM quote: Originally posted by Tchuck: I agree with the above comments also. Did you do a nice warm up with some striders? Also, how were you feeling during those first 3K? In your mind were you feeling that you didn't think you could hold this pace???? It is rare that a switch turns on and suddenly you "die". When I am running on the track determined to post fast times....I find that it is not unusual for a swicth to turn on and then I die. Something about running around in circles (and going nowhere) for the whole world to see makes one want to give up. IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time (US).	> next newest topic \| > next oldest topic Topic is 33 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Administrative Options: > Close Topic \| > Archive/Move \| > Delete Topic Hop to: