posted Apr-02-2007 02:51 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".

---

Todd, I warmed up with about 2 miles of easy running and a few striders.

I definitely thought during the first 3k that "man, this is a tough pace...I'm not sure I can hold it." I did my best to ignore that feeling and just stay on pace.

But when I died, I did die quickly. It happened in a span of less than 400 meters. In that distance, it changed from, "this hurts, but I can still turn the legs over," to "OMG, I just can't."

------------------
My User Profile
Sub-40 10k Blog

IP: Logged

posted Apr-02-2007 02:57 PM            

This is a really good test. This 4:00/k pace tells you that you have slipped into the anaerobic abyss. You were incurring a small debt every k. Eventually you fried your pistons and blew all your tires.

I think if you would have done
1k 4:30
2k 4:20
3k 4:10
4k do your first 4:00
5k repeat it again at 4:00

You could have done 21 minutes flat. Not bad for a solo TT.

Just increase your weekly mileage. Rake those miles in.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-02-2007 04:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abadabajev:
Dakota Ridgerunner,

This is a really good test. This 4:00/k pace tells you that you have slipped into the anaerobic abyss. You were incurring a small debt every k. Eventually you fried your pistons and blew all your tires.

---

Yes, I think you're absolutely right about that. It was anaerobic from the start, but it just took 3k to really catch up with me.

I'm pretty sure you're right that 1k laps of 4:30, 4:20, 4:10, 4:00, and 4:00 would have been possible for a 21:00 time. I was stubborn, though!

------------------
My User Profile
Sub-40 10k Blog

IP: Logged

posted Apr-02-2007 05:16 PM               

Two weeks ago, I bought a pair of running shoes and went out and did a slow 5k, 2 days later I did a 1/2 jog, followed by a 1mile speed run, followed by another 1/2 jog, then a 10k a few days later and one other short fast run and then the 5k.

Basically, any suggestions as to what might help me improve my time the most to make it to sub 19:00 min in 4 weeks would be greatly appreciated.

Chao.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 09:04 AM            

I am excited to get a run in when its not snowing and 23 degrees now. I am eyeing 3 runs in the near future. April 22, April 29 and May 4. I believe my all time record of 20:30 is in serious jeopardy come April 22.

For my race report please click:

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/009924.shtml

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 11:27 AM            

MattStolz: to go from 20:30 to 18:xx in four weeks (three weeks now) - do not get hurt, lose some weight if appropriate, and rely on natural talent. Maybe, once per week, practice the pace so you will not go out too fast or slow. No hard four to seven days before the race. Good luck

I have a 5K on April 21 and another May 12. I hope to go sub 20 April 21. I have run 413 miles year to date.

Good running all

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 03:22 PM               

Cool thread! I'm going to keep coming back here to check things out.

My all time 5K PR is 19:36. I got that about 9 months after having my first child. I'm now 7 months post my second child and am full swing back into running. I ran my first post-second pregnancy 5K on St. Patrick's Day in 20:51. My next race is scheduled for 4/22. I've been doing about 20 - 25 mpw, gradually increasing for the past month, and hoping to keep increasing into the future. I would love to do better than my 19:36 at some point, but don't really know when I might get there. Just getting back into the swing of racing again.

Kim

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 04:55 PM               

To obliterate the 20s, how much of a taper should I have? How much should I cut weekly mileage(currently 40mpw) and for how long, and what should I do with my weekly long run(11mi) according to your experiences? I already have a general idea, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

I coincidentally just found this taper chart from runningtimes.com:
2nd Week Race Week
5K 20% 50%

[This message has been edited by neverenough (edited Apr-09-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 06:47 PM            

Instead, I'm shooting for sub-21. The course is fairly slow because of the dirt surface and wind, and I've found that I perform much better in a road 10k than predicted by my results on this 5k course. For example, I had 5k splits in the Bolder Boulder 10k that were both faster than my three races on this 5k course, and that was just several weeks later.

MattStolz - it sounds like you've got great natural speed. Sub-20 should go pretty quickly for you. Sub-19 is a little harder to predict, especially since your goal race is less than 4 weeks away. I'm no expert, but I would try to just increase your mileage and throw in a 5x1000 session at goal pace on the track once a week. Rest 1:30 between intervals. That's worked well for me, anyway.

MichiganFlyer - nice race report. I agree, your PR will be in jeapardy soon. I think you could be graduating from this thread soon as well.

MaineRunner - you've got about 60 more miles this year than me. I think you can do it.

Kim - it sounds like you're on the right track. A sub-21 5k is a great way to come back. You've obviously got some great talent and you're probably used to getting hardware at races. Good for you!

neverenough - I can't really answer about the proper taper, but by putting in the miles and the track work, you should be positioned well for the sub-20.

Good luck to all!

------------------
My User Profile
Sub-40 10k Blog

IP: Logged

posted Apr-09-2007 10:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dakota Ridgerunner:
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.

---

It's late and I'm tired but I'm pretty sure Noakes touched upon in in "Lore Of Running".

IP: Logged

posted Apr-10-2007 03:42 PM            

I hope this speedwork I am about to embark on will pay huge dividends with the base I have developed. Tonight I might try the 400-800-1200-1600-1200-800-400 ladder work.

That is 4 miles of fast running. I don't know if I will have time to do that or not but we will see. If not I will go for the 5 X 800 meters in 3:00. Piece of cake. I am ready for this easy child's play. If I feel good after 5 1/2 miles Maybe I will try 6 X 800.

Going back to my race (21:29) the fellow who got 3rd with a time of 20:03 ran an 18:46 a few weeks ago. So if he was going all out in that race this Saturday that would put my time around 20:10 or less. I also finished 27 seconds ahead of a fellow who earlier this year ran a 20:31.

I am going over what I did right or wrong in that race. I went out fairly fast and tried to keep a maximum pace going without hurting. After 1 mile I felt terrific and that is all I ever hope for at the mile mark. I tired at mile 2....I think I need to start including a long run every week. Right now I am lucky if I hit a weekly long run of 5 miles. I like to run more than once a day in increments of 2-5 miles so I may be lacking endurance as far as a long run.

So I need a long run....also interval....maybe a threshold run as well every week something like 4 miles X 7:00 pace.

I cannot wait for my April 22 race.

Dakota...good call aiming for 21:00....it is good to have 20 for a long term goal but you need short term very reachable goals to hit your long term marks.

I am aiming for sub 20:30 PR at the April 22 race as that seems extremely possible and much less formidable than my 20 gioal.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-11-2007 07:50 AM            

3:00
2:56
2:56
2:59
2:52

5 times was enough for me. I hope this interval work helps me out in next Sundays race.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-11-2007 08:03 AM               

Need to be careful about throwing in the maximum amount of speed work without easing into it. Nice to have progression.
For you, the race and work out can help physiologically and mentally.

I think it is more important for you for your long term progress to include a threshold run and a longer run each wk vs. speed work. Yes, some faster stuff before a peak race is great but the improvement from this speed work isn't as much as you think. You need the foundation.

------------------
Todd

IP: Logged

posted Apr-11-2007 09:42 PM            

Race report on my blog below...

------------------
My User Profile
Sub-40 10k Blog

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 07:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Michigan,

Need to be careful about throwing in the maximum amount of speed work without easing into it. Nice to have progression.
For you, the race and work out can help physiologically and mentally.

I think it is more important for you for your long term progress to include a threshold run and a longer run each wk vs. speed work. Yes, some faster stuff before a peak race is great but the improvement from this speed work isn't as much as you think. You need the foundation.

---

Appreciate the advice as you seem to have learned from experience.

The speedwork Tuesday gave me some comfidence anyhow. I thought 5 X 3:00 would be tough but possible. I didn't know I could do a 5 X 2:57. That will be the last interval work before my race Sunday. I ran 6 miles yesterday and felt great. I hope to run an easy 8-10 miler on Saturday.

Dakota 21:08 that is 20 seconds faster than what I ran last Saturday. Like I said I would advise setting your sight on breaking 21 and consistently training to get a little better each week. If you want it enough you will put in the training which is usually easy running. The closer you get to 20 the easier it becomes to train.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-12-2007 08:06 AM               

------------------
Todd

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 02:33 PM            

I need to keep training for this mark and bring down my time in small increments with an eye on the 20 mark but realize it isnt going to come in one day.10-20 seconds taken from my race time will bring me ever closer to my goal.

I am hoping for a sub 20:30 on Sunday. temps should be in the mid 60s on Sunday afternoon. I believe I could be anywhere from 20:10-20:50. Once I crack 20 the mystery will be broken and I think it will make things so much nicer. But now I dont know if its possible.

It would be great if I got a 20:10 as then I know what kind of training I need to continue to do to push me to the 20 mark. If I run a 20:50 I am going to be looking for a course in my backyard to run and run until I can easily break 20 on it then maybe do the same with an upcoming race.

But things are good. I ran 46 miles last week and am gonna taper some this week and compare my times with others (should be around 700 in this race Sunday) to see where I am at and what I need to do to break 20.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 03:17 PM               

A little background..

Im 36, have only been running since last August, and im 5'6 150. i was never really very active as an adult but after losing 100 lbs last year I got motivated to exercise more and more and started running.

My 5K times have dropped steadily since the first one Sept of last year that was around 27 minutes I believe.
I hit 21:11 in the last 5K of last year in December.

Ive pretty much maintained a steady base of 18-25 miles every week since the beginning of 2007.

I had plans to up my miles to 30 by now but ive been battling through PF since February so ive been careful about upping my miles too much. Havent really done any speedwork per se since getting PF either.

I have ran a few other races at other distances but nothing over 10 miles so far. ( longest training run was 11 miles so far)

This past Saturday I had my first 5K of 2007 and on a short course ( may have been as short as 3 miles even but not 100 % sure)

Anyway, my time for what we will call 3 miles was 19:56 clock time. So that would be somewhere around 20:35 for 5K im guessing ??

My splits are as follows :

Mile 1: 6:28
Mile 2 6:43 ( ?? there were some hills here thats the
only thing I can figure plus I was feeling a little drained here)

mile 3: 6:28

not sure for the rest as of course as usual I forgot to hit stop on the Garmin after I crossed the line.

I was pretty spent the last 1/2 mile and thought for sure I was going to hurl when I crossed the finish line but otherwise not too bad.

Im a little worried about upping the miles too much more or doing too much speed work right now until my PF gets better.

Any suggestions for getting my 5K time down by June 13 ? I have another 5k before that but its only a week after a 10 mile race so im not even going to try to run that one all out.

Im guessing a little speedwork without overdoing it but can anyone give me some sample suggestions for that ? thanks so much! Sub 20 will be mine this year!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2007 03:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichiganFlyer:
5 X 1/2 mile on treadmill (1% grade) in splits of:

3:00
2:56
2:56
2:59
2:52

5 times was enough for me. I hope this interval work helps me out in next Sundays race.

---

This looks good for sub 20 or close to it, just make sure you get a touch of speed this week without overdoing it, and don't do it close to race day.

With the cold weather, all I've been doing is maintaining base. I have a half marathon coming up in 4 weeks, I'm unlikely to touch my PR of 1:32. I did 52 miles last week including a 2 hour run with an 80 minute light tempo core and some 800's at the local track (first of the year, about 3:15 per). The weather has not been conducive to hard outdoor running and I'm looking forward to getting these layers off me, which is what this week finally promises. I've got hill repeats early tomorrow morning and will be trying to get my mileage up a bit, I want more miles of light running in my schedule. No target race for this at this time, but there's a couple of prospects in late spring and early summer.

[This message has been edited by JimR (edited Apr-17-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 12:40 AM               

The study Eyestone cites has got to be flawed in some way. My bet is the subjects were simply not running the correct effort to produce their best times in the study.

Let's look at it logically. Let's say you are K. Bekele and you can run 12:37.6 (his world record, if I recall the tenths correctly) and you want to drop your worl record time). So, let's do the math - use the faster than average pace by 6% strategy cited.

Bekele's record was 4:02.85 per 1600m (which is 4 laps) or 4:04.26 per mile. Let's subtract 6% from that and to derive his supposed "ideal" pace to run the first mile of the race - per Eyestone. That's 3:47.89 at the 1600m or 3:49.22 at the mile.

Anyone see the problem right away? He's running right at his 1-mile personal best time when he goes out at 6% faster than his average pace.

Anyone every run 1 mile at 98-100% effort and then try to continue running the last 2.1 miles of a 5k race?

Not a very prudent thing to do, is it!

Realistically, Bekele is going to run very close to even splits. IN fact, some "rabbits" are paid a lot of money to run even splits for the top dogs like Bekele.

If the pros actually thought running 98-100% of one's best 1-mile time during a 5k was smart, they'd do it. They don't, and neither should you!

Regards,

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 08:04 AM            

For the majority of runners they are running the 1st mile too slow if all split times are equal. If you look at a high school cross country race nearly 100% of the runners 1st mile times are a few percent faster than the other miles. I always would think of the world record splits and think they were running the races wrong (too fast in mile 1). The top runners in cross country are better with even splits but still the 1st mile is often the fastest by a 5-10 seconds.

Most runners start out too slow for fear of maxing out before the end and not completing a race. This treadmill test forced the runners to go out 3% and 6% faster,,,,yet they still ran the last mile at almost the same speed as those who started with the slowest mile times.

To be fair it seems to me something is fishy in these tests as well but it caused me to try and go out faster in 1st miles or races to see if I can gain some valiuable seconds.

Anyhow I ran 6 X 1/2 mile last night in 3:00, 3:00, 3:00, 3:00, 3:00 and 2:53. It was much easier than last weeks 5 x 1/2 mile interval work. Race in 4 days!

Also my previous comment of not being confident of breaking 20. Shucks...I do have some talent in speed and if I finish in top 60 of 300 guys I will break 20...I bet only 200 guys are serious runners...so I have to finish in top 30% of serious male runners. It definately is possible.

[This message has been edited by MichiganFlyer (edited Apr-18-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 09:48 AM            

http://www.runningnetworkarchives.com/runwashington/tips/12.html

Tapering

Short and Fast Is Best

by Chris Stockdal

Like many runners, you probably run a number of races throughout the year, but of those races, only a few are really "big". Those are the races on which you focus your training for months in advance, and where you hope to run a PR (Personal Record).

When you're down to a week to go before a "big" race, what sort of running do you do? Let's assume it's a 10-mile race and that you are serious about your finishing time, in which case you have probably considered tapering in some form. Perhaps you know you should cut back a bit, but feel you need a few more long, fairly hard runs just to make sure you can complete the distance within your hoped-for time. Or perhaps you will cut way back on the total number of miles you ran, either running them all very slowly or maybe including some fast interval or fartlek work.

Or perhaps you won't run at all. But how many of you will plan to limit yourselves to just small amounts of fast running covering a total of only a few miles? Probably none. However, according to studies by researchers at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, this latter form of tapering will produce the most dramatic and beneficial results.

WHY TAPER?

As runners, most of us fear losing our edge and adding to our waistlines if we cut back on our running, even for just a week. However, scientific evidence suggests that temporary training reductions bolster leg muscle power, reduce lactic acid production, and can cut minutes off 10K race times. In contrast, hard workouts just before a race can produce nagging injuries and deplete leg muscles of their key fuel for running--glycogen.

Although coaches and exercise physiologists agree that tapering enhances performance, disagreement exists on the most beneficial method used. This usually boils down to the questions of by how much training should be reduced during the tapering period; and if selected amounts of speedwork should be included or avoided completely.

TAPERING TESTS

To attempt to answer these questions amd others about tapering, the McMaster University researchers, headed by Duncan MacDougall, studied the effects of three one-week tapering methods performed by well-conditioned runners.

The runners averaged 45-50 miles a week of running and trained in eight-week long segments. After completing each segment, they tapered using one of the following methods, and then were tested by running to exhaustion on a treadmill at their mile pace. The results were compared to the same test run before tapering.

The no running taper needs no explanation; they simply didn't run for a week. The seond method involved running 18 or so miles at a relaxed pace and resting completely for one day. The third had the athletes run hard 500 meter intervals, decreasing the number run each day. Day one they ran 5 x 500 intervals; day two, 4 x 500; day three, 3 x 500; day four, 2 x 500, and day five, 1 x 500. They rested on the sixth day and were tested on the seventh. Each interval session was preceded by a warm-up of 500 meters at an easy pace. Thus the total mileage for the week was only just over six miles.

TAPERING RESULTS

The results were dramatic. Endurance times from the speedy taper improved 22%, while those for the slow 18-mile taper only improved 6%. No improvement was gained from the no running method. Why did the short, fast running work? According to the researchers, speedy tapering:

Stockpiles more carbohydrate fuel in the runner's leg muscles;
Increases red blood cell density;
Augments total blood volume, permitting more blood to gush toward
the leg muscles during exercise; and
Enhances leg muscle enzyme activity.

In addition, by running fast, athletes will keep their nerves and muscles "primed" for race conditions. Although the tests produced great results, MacDougall admits he still doesn't know what the optimal tapering plan actually is. That may incorporate complete rest for three days prior to competition, he speculates. But the tests do show conclusively that for the most successful tapering for a week or so, it is important to keep the intensity of workouts fairly high while cutting back drastically on mileage.

SUGGESTED TAPERING SCHEDULE

Interested in trying this method before your next important race? Here's a sample schedule devised by Owen Anderson, Ph.D., editor of Running Research News, based on the Canadian research. To compute your total interval distance for the tapering week, simply take your usual weekly mileage and multiply by 9%. The result is your total interval distance for the taper week.

Example: You average 40 miles of running per week, and want to know how to use the McMaster results to taper during the final week before an important Sunday 10K. You should do the following calculation: 9% x 40 = 3.6 miles of intervals, or about 14 or 15 quarter miles (400 meter) intervals. Here's how this actual schedule would look:

Each day: Begin with a slow half-mile warm-up.
Sunday: Five 400 meter intervals run at 5K pace. Between each fast
interval, walk and relax until comfortable and then start the next
interval.
Monday: Four x 400 at 5K race pace, with similar rest intervals.
Tuesday: Three x 400.
Wednesday: Two x 400.
Thursday: One x 400.
Friday: Absolute, complete rest from running.

That's all! You would complete fifteen 400 meter intervals during the taper. A 25-miles-per-week runner would do 9% x 25 = 2.25 miles of intervals, or nine 400 meter intervals. The nine could be broken down as 3-2-2-1-1 over five days (on Sumday through Thursday leading up to a Saturday race).

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 12:31 PM               

I've written about that tapering study in the past. I've looked at it closely. The interpretation of the results is fine but an extrapolation to "real world running" is ludicrous. The subjects in that study did NOT do any sort of faster running in the lead up to that taper. That is, they did not train as you or I would train.

All subjects ran easy distance for a few weeks and then they were split into groups: control, tapering with speedwork, and non or minimal tapering without speedwork. The ones with the big taper and speedwork fared the best. But, that is simply because they stimulated their motor-nueral connections to fire more power in their strides.. It is a common phenomena for distance runners (in the past, especially) who ran Base Mileage without speedwork and then ran in their first race without speedwork. A week later, then run another race and they are several seconds or even minutes faster. The first races served as a neural prep for the second. Had the runners done some sort of faster running - race pace or speedwork - during the mileage buildup, the results would have been in favor of them instead of the drastic taper with interval work.

Time and again people have emailed to me about how they were in good shape, had dedicated themselves to building a good Base and done everything right (had even felt quite strong) in the lead-up to an important race. Then, they tapered mileage and ran like crap in their important race. They wonder why!

You see, the one's I am talking about did the mileage, did the race-pace or speedwork and were rolling along well. Then, a taper took all the endurance they had and threw it out the window. It was gone and so was their performance!

Tuth is, many, many runners have set personal or seasonal best times even when they had NO taper at all or had been running high mileage. Far more succeed while doing the mileage or doing their "normal" training than those who taper. It is reality!

Regards,

Tinman

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 01:47 PM            

Interesting. Yes I thought maybe they had found the miracle training to take minutes off your race time by only running 2-3 miles in the week of your race but running it fast.

I was going through my running logs trying to find my fastest times.

I ran an incredible 19:14 5k on the treadmill in January. I went back to see if I had tapered the week before this run. You know what? I ran 9.5 miles the day before.

And I broke my 4 mile and 5 mile record on the treadmill during a normal 36 mile week.

One thing that seems to have worked for me in the past is running a long run of 9-10 miles a week before my goal race.
I have broken all my records from 1 mile to 6 miles by running 90% slow paced runs at 3:00 per mile slower than race pace.

I just started speedwork last Tuesday getting ready for the racing season. Maybe I will see huge improvements?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-18-2007 06:58 PM            

IP: Logged