posted May-19-2007 02:58 PM               

The weather site is calling for temps of 60 degrees at race time with a wind at 10mph. I could not ask for much better than this.

On June 1st I am scheduled to run this same course again so I will get 2 cracks at a very familiar course. I should be able to lower my time some more.

The course is 2 loops around a 2.5 km block. I am thinking how I want to attack this race. I am looking to run comfortably fast on mile 1 as I did in a training run last week (which I hit a mile in 6:35 even though I ran the last 1/2 mile into a stiff 15mph headwind). So I am hoping for 6:30 or below for mile 1. I would be right on target with a time anywhere in the 6:20's.

Once I get to mile 1 I will kick into concentration mode. I will attempt to put more effort in which I am looking to propel me to a 13:00-13:05 two mile time.

Mile 3 is the last one so I want to keep concentrating for the 1st half of it though my body will tell me to slow. I am looking forward to the last 1/2 mile of this race. I am going to try to put the hammer down and slice time in the last km.

The last 2 weeks I ran 20:22 and 20:28 so I don't think there is any reason I cannot be consistent in that range. With a flat course and good temps I might be seeing a new PR then on June 1st I can break the 20 barrier for good.

IP: Logged

posted May-19-2007 05:11 PM               

I have my half tomorrow, temp should be 50-55. I would prefer 45 but can't complain......

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

IP: Logged

posted May-19-2007 06:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tchuck:
Good luck Michigan. You will do fine.

I have my half tomorrow, temp should be 50-55. I would prefer 45 but can't complain......

---

There is a half-mary in Lansing in September I might run. My dream time would be 1:30 but I have never run that far yet (furthest run was 12 miles). If I ran it today I would probably aim for 1:35.

You have a good time as well I appreciate the kind word and know what you mean by it.

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 06:26 PM               

I ran 2 miles warmup. Then I ran comfortably fast on the 1st mile intentionally holding back a little. I hit 1 mile in 6:40. I felt like I was having a decent run so that deflated me a little. I tried to run a similar time for mile 2. I hit the midway part of the race (end of loop 1) in 10:22. I have to try and beat 21 I thought as it would be quite dissapointing to go above 21 again.

I hit 2 miles in 13:22 (6:42 second mile). I felt myself losing concentration in mile 3. With 1/2 mile to go I thought about putting the hammer down. It was so hard. I wanted to coast in...there was definately no hammer in me. I forced myself to pass a guy my age and it wasn't that bad so I upped the ante and passed 2 more guys going around the last turn ending with a 20:51 (approx 6:53 third mile)

I was 3rd of 20 in my age group and 41st of 418 overall.

I run this same course in 12 days. I have to make it my friend by then. I just didn't have it today but I like my new 3rd place medal.

[This message has been edited by MichiganFlyer2 (edited May-20-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-20-2007 06:50 PM               

I think you will do better next time. The wind can affect performance. It certainly was deflating for me today for my half as I was ready to make a move to break 1:30 with 5K left only to face a 20mph wind. No way. Couldn't hold the pace I needed to but still PRd.

20:00 is very possible in 12 days with everything clicking. Do you run the day before the race???? What does your taper (or not) look like?? Just curious of a way to mix it up to help you peak out.

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

[This message has been edited by Tchuck (edited May-21-2007).]

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 10:46 AM            

I ran a 15K yesterday. Not sure of the exact time as the official results are not posted on coolrunning yet. I did not stop my watch until 10 - 20 seconds after I finished. The watch read 01:08:58 (7:25 pace) when I finally stopped it. It was not a full out 15K for me - more like a tempo run. A long one though. I do not have another 5K scheduled until August 4. The rest of this spring and until the August race I plan to continue the workouts tchuck and tinman suggested to me in earlier posts on this thread.

Good running all

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 03:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichiganFlyer2:
I ran 2 miles warmup. Then I ran comfortably fast on the 1st mile intentionally holding back a little. I hit 1 mile in 6:40. I felt like I was having a decent run so that deflated me a little. I tried to run a similar time for mile 2. I hit the midway part of the race (end of loop 1) in 10:22. I have to try and beat 21 I thought as it would be quite dissapointing to go above 21 again.

---

hey, michigan, i know i'm going to get a lot of grief for this one, but have you considered trying to go faster in mile 1 rather than run the even splits everyone talks about. all my best 5Ks have mile 1 as the fastest (not by much but i certainly don't start easy anymore). there was an article in one of the running mags that looked at 5K times for a controlled group of runners. they had them run 5Ks with the first mile 6% faster than overall pace, 3% faster, and at an even pace, and the runners with the best times overall were the ones who ran the first mile 6% faster than the overall pace. 6% isn't that much faster but in a 5K if you start too slow there just isn't enough pavement to make up much time in the end. in longer races, i have total faith in the even split strategy but i don't try to run 5Ks like that anymore.

my 5K PR is 19:45 with mile splits of 6:12, 6:17, and 6:38 (0:38 for last 0.1 mile). overall pace of 6:22 mpm with mile 1 about 3% faster than overall pace. this was on a flat and fast course with no hills and no significant wind to speak of.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichiganFlyer2:
I ran 2 miles warmup. Then I ran comfortably fast on the 1st mile intentionally holding back a little. I hit 1 mile in 6:40. I felt like I was having a decent run so that deflated me a little. I tried to run a similar time for mile 2. I hit the midway part of the race (end of loop 1) in 10:22. I have to try and beat 21 I thought as it would be quite dissapointing to go above 21 again.

---

hey, michigan, i know i'm going to get a lot of grief for this one, but have you considered trying to go faster in mile 1 rather than run the even splits everyone talks about. all my best 5Ks have mile 1 as the fastest (not by much but i certainly don't start easy anymore). there was an article in one of the running mags that looked at 5K times for a controlled group of runners. they had them run 5Ks with the first mile 6% faster than overall pace, 3% faster, and at an even pace, and the runners with the best times overall were the ones who ran the first mile 6% faster than the overall pace. 6% isn't that much faster but in a 5K if you start too slow there just isn't enough pavement to make up much time in the end. in longer races, i have total faith in the even split strategy but i don't try to run 5Ks like that anymore.

my 5K PR is 19:45 with mile splits of 6:12, 6:17, and 6:38 (0:38 for last 0.1 mile). overall pace of 6:22 mpm with mile 1 about 3% faster than overall pace. this was on a flat and fast course with no hills and no significant wind to speak of.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 06:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
That's one f'in hell of an improvement. Question: you're in HS, correct? Not to say sound training and talent don't come into play, but you're also in your formative years--very different equation for a 30-50 year old guy to get that kind of improvement?

Curious (and truly, just curious): how long it take to go from over 20 to 16:xx (and if you're running in the 16s, did you go to Footlocker regionals in the Midwest [will 16 get you to Footlocker])? How did your training evolve? Any kind of phyisical changes on your end?

---

It took me about 9 months. I'm not trying to put any of you down, I understand a 50 year old has much harder times running than I do. I'm not THAT talented, my mile time with a month of training was 8:11.

Anyway. No, it will take a 14 something to get to Footlocker. My training was mostly speedwork without base, but once I started to get some mileage I improved. By the way, my time is 16:43, not 16:00[I wish.] No, my physical changes occured about 2 years ago.

I hope I didn't come off as an ass, I'm not coming in trying to brag[I know someone my age with a 15:13, i have no room to talk]. What I'm saying is that for those of you within 40 seconds of it, a litle bit more work and mileage will get you there. After I resolved to really go for it and work harder, this was my time progression.

21:04-20:30-19:52-19:30-18:41

This occured over 2 months. At that level, time drops quick and fast, but now my time progression is going at a much slower clip. A big factor was speedwork, I did about 4 high intensity speed sessions a week for 2 months.

Sparknotes: Didn't mean to be an ass, nowhere near Footlocker, trying to impose the fact that with a little more training[maybe add 10 more miles and an interval session], your goals will be realized.

If anyone want more indepth tips, feel free to email me at charlaywalsh@hotmail.com.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 08:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by joev9:
hey, michigan, i know i'm going to get a lot of grief for this one, but have you considered trying to go faster in mile 1 rather than run the even splits everyone talks about. all my best 5Ks have mile 1 as the fastest (not by much but i certainly don't start easy anymore). there was an article in one of the running mags that looked at 5K times for a controlled group of runners. they had them run 5Ks with the first mile 6% faster than overall pace, 3% faster, and at an even pace, and the runners with the best times overall were the ones who ran the first mile 6% faster than the overall pace. 6% isn't that much faster but in a 5K if you start too slow there just isn't enough pavement to make up much time in the end. in longer races, i have total faith in the even split strategy but i don't try to run 5Ks like that anymore.

my 5K PR is 19:45 with mile splits of 6:12, 6:17, and 6:38 (0:38 for last 0.1 mile). overall pace of 6:22 mpm with mile 1 about 3% faster than overall pace. this was on a flat and fast course with no hills and no significant wind to speak of.

---

Yes the thought crossed my mind. I am going to go out faster than 6:40 in the next race no doubt. But my 1st mile is always the fastest right now even with trying for equal splits. The 19:59 high school runners usually run about 6:05-6:20 for their 1st mile times so I know that is about what I need to be in the realm of sub 20.

I had a practice run a week ago where I ran a 6:35, 6:34, 6:39 and it felt very easy so I tried to capture that feeling again in this race by starting out less than fast. It didn't work.

I am going to practice a 2 miler this week with a fast start and see how much it hurts in mile 2 and if I have something left at the end of 2 miles. I don't want to do anything in a race unless I have practiced it first.

I wonder if another factor may be that I run better at night. I usually run between 5-7 pm at home every night. Yesterday was a 2pm start. I ran my 20:22 time at 7pm two weeks ago. I should not have eaten the pizza the night before the race yesterday either. I am learning what to do before races thats for sure with 4 runs under my belt in the last 2 months.

21:28, 21:02, 20:22, 20:51

Race 5 coming up June 1st at 7:30 pm.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 11:44 PM            

How fast can you run a single mile? Have you thought about doing a little training to improve your single mile time and maybe get it around 5:45. Years ago when I was running sub 17:00 minutes for the 5K I had to be able to run a sub 5:00 minute single mile.

I am not currently doing in speed training due to the fact that I am still trying to lose weight over my race times. I will start speed training once I get under 200 lbs. My first goal will be to run a sub 5:45 mile.

IP: Logged

posted May-21-2007 11:49 PM               

"Recent male world record-holders in the 1OK have certainly tended to negative-split their races, although no one has actually reached a 51-49 division. As mentioned, Sigei's remarkable effort was attained with a 50.4-49.6 split, and five of the last record holders have negative-split their races, with Henry Rono's 50.5-49.5 breakdown being the most severe. Only Yobes Ondieki and Arturo Barrios violated the negative-split principle, and in each case the world-record race was composed of 49.9-50.1 parts, almost an equal apportioning of time."

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I'm sure the same is true at 5k. I know that Haile Gebrselassie set his world records with near perfectly even splitting.

And please don't tell me that it's different for slower runners. An elite runner actually has a better chance of recovering from a too fast early pace than we do.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 06:01 AM               

as joe says the 5k is a different beast to longer races. there is less time to make up for a slow start and less time to completely crash and burn after too fast a start.

the other advantage of starting off at a pace slightly faster than original goal pace is that you will find yourself further up the field than usual and the competeitive instinct to maintain your position could help you maintain that pace longer than you would be able to under normal circumstances.

risks are worth taking in races, especially if you have a goal time you are desperate to achieve. there will always be another 5k to enter!!

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by runwalkjog:
MichiganFlyer2

How fast can you run a single mile? Have you thought about doing a little training to improve your single mile time and maybe get it around 5:45. Years ago when I was running sub 17:00 minutes for the 5K I had to be able to run a sub 5:00 minute single mile.

I am not currently doing in speed training due to the fact that I am still trying to lose weight over my race times. I will start speed training once I get under 200 lbs. My first goal will be to run a sub 5:45 mile.

---

I ran a mile in 5:48 about a month ago on the treadmill (with 1% slope) but the top speed on my treadmill is just over 10mph so I can probably run a mile in around 5:40 on the track. I would like to attempt a PR mile on the track in a couple weeks or so. A 5:46 mile time equates to a 20:00 5k according to McMillan race calculator so I don't know why I am having trouble with breaking 21 currently. Maybe I need to find the right pace outdoors.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 07:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim24315:
It's ludicrous to think you'll run a faster time by going out at a much faster pace than you can hope to average for the entire race--absolutely ludicrous. It makes zero sense to go out at 6:06-6:10 when your goal is to break 20 minutes. A pair of 6:26's and a 6:25 will get the job done.

"Recent male world record-holders in the 1OK have certainly tended to negative-split their races, although no one has actually reached a 51-49 division. As mentioned, Sigei's remarkable effort was attained with a 50.4-49.6 split, and five of the last record holders have negative-split their races, with Henry Rono's 50.5-49.5 breakdown being the most severe. Only Yobes Ondieki and Arturo Barrios violated the negative-split principle, and in each case the world-record race was composed of 49.9-50.1 parts, almost an equal apportioning of time."

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I'm sure the same is true at 5k. I know that Haile Gebrselassie set his world records with near perfectly even splitting.

And please don't tell me that it's different for slower runners. An elite runner actually has a better chance of recovering from a too fast early pace than we do.

---

Jim,

Believe it or not but I tend to agree that going out faster leads to faster race times for most people. Granted this is high school cross country results (girls mile splits in attached website) and you need to get a good position early on for points but its the same in a road race. Sunday I got behind too many slow people (even though I started pretty near the front) and had to pass about 20 runners in the 1st half mile who slowed up. That led to a 6:40 first mile and the 2nd mile seems to feed off the 1st mile. If you run mile one slow its easy to pick a similar speed for mile 2. Positions rarely change in mile 2 of a race, If you run the 1st mile 15 seconds faster it will be very difficult for someone to catch you from that far behind.

If you look at the results in the website from the Michigan girls finals (all classes) in 2006 you can see the 19:59 runners and just below...Most of them blazed that 1st mile.Without looking too much but I usually find this is true you will see the best girls overall had very even splits or perhaps negative splits. That comes with experience and only the best runners run that way.

So you are right the best way to run is even splits (or negative) but for 95% of runners this just isn't how they run.

I certainly would not try to run a 6:05 first mile but I would try to run a 6:20 first mile. My 5k PR came a couple weeks ago in which I ran 6:21, 6:40, 6:43.

http://www.mhsaa.com/sports/bxc/06gdream.txt

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:00 AM            

http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/010165.shtml

It is actually kind of interesting how the stroller can help motivate me sometimes.

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:19 AM            

PS I always wondered--how do the kids like the races?

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:36 AM               

The splits for my best 5k in last couple years (April '06) were 6:13, 6:21, 6:18, :41 (19:35) for 6:18 average, so my first mile was fastest. I think I would have run faster overall if I'd run first one at around 6:20.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 09:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim24315:
For what it's worth I usally go out too fast, even though I don't plan to. However, most of my all-time best races have come from very close to even pacing. It's hard to argue with those world records too. Almost all records are done with close to even splits.

---

I don't think you have to apologize Jim, everyone here knows you and knows where your coming from...at least I hope that is the case.

Much like you no matter how much I tell myself not to go out too fast I almost always do. But I have gotten much better and even more important at least for me is that I have found the ability to drop it down a notch before the end of the first mile to a more reasonable pace which has certainly helped minimize any "burnout effect" for me in my most recent races.

I also would agree that it is hard to argue with the results of those world records!

------------------
My User Profile

"Keep on Running"
Bob

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:30 AM               

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:39 AM            

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 10:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by mainers:
no need to apologize Jim. I was just making the point that there is more than one way to skin a cat so a fast first mile option shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. i fully agree that in 99% of races the even pacing approach is the way to go, but a fast first mile approach could be risked at least once to see how it goes, especially in a 5k

---

Runner’s world recently did an article where they tested the “going out too fast theory”. The evidence from the tests suggested that going out too fast in a 5K was actually a good thing. Most of the runners were actually faster that way.

I subscribe to the theory out of necessity. Most courses in our area start with a long downhill. I need to bank as much time as possible so that I don’t struggle going back up that hill at the end. Recently, I ran a 5k course that had a 175 ft and a separate 125 foot descent and climb. I ran a 5:10 first mile with the single stroller. That was with the hand brake on full lock the whole way down. I was in total control of the stroller but yes we were flying.
Now you would probably think that I would have been totally wasted after running 1:30 under my normal mile pace. However, I wasn’t terribly gassed. I slowed down a ton on the hills but that is just because I lack the strength to maintain speed uphill with the stroller. I ended up with a 5:10 first mile and a 9:30 last mile. If I had not taken advantage of the downhills then my last mile would have been the exact same(Strength limited. God my quads hurt after that!) and my first mile would have been much worse. I say “on courses with steep long downhills you might as well take advantage of them instead of spending energy to hold yourself back”. Flat courses are a different story. Running consistent miles has always worked well for me in that case.
Yes the kids absolutely love running with the stroller. My son broke out into elephant tears when the race director told him that he could not race on Saturday. I think the race director’s heart nearly fell out of his body when he realized how upset my son was!

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonsDrivingForce:
Yes the kids absolutely love running with the stroller. My son broke out into elephant tears when the race director told him that he could not race on Saturday. I think the race director’s heart nearly fell out of his body when he realized how upset my son was!

---

That is absolutely precious! I bet he ends up being quite the runner himself when he grows up!

As for starting hard, I always do. I'm impressed you guys feel able to deliberately pace. I don't really know how to run 5ks other than run out fast and keep on running fast! Seriously, it goes by so quickly there's not a whole lot of time to mess around with pacing. Admittedly, I've only run 2 5ks in recent times but I felt that way both times. I think I took the first one out in 6:11 and the second one out in 6:16. I ran 19:42 for the first and 19:43 for the second.

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 11:40 AM            

Nothing like running half the speed you started at!

------------------
My Profile

IP: Logged

posted May-22-2007 01:06 PM            

I also agree with runwalkjog that if you're in a "rapidly improving" phase, you may not know what your best pace is at that point in time (unlike the pros, who can gauge their ideal pace within a few seconds). Going out fast may yield a faster time than an ultra conservative strategy.

Here were my splits at my last two 5k races:

May 8
Mile 1: 6:08
Mile 2: 6:23
Mile 3: 6:35
Finish: 19:47

May 15
Mile 1: 6:04.5
Mile 2: 6:15
Mile 3: 6:28
Finish: 19:30

Those were both PR's, and the only times I've broken 20 minutes. As you can see, I went out really fast in both, and slowed quite a bit by the third mile.

Since I PR'd, does this mean that going out faster than goal pace works? No. It's quite possible that I PR'd in spite of "poor pacing." The only way for me to know which strategy works better for me would be to try racing even splits and see how well I perform.

Actually, at my last 5k that's what I tried to do -- run even splits. However, even though I tried, I still ran 6:04.5 (a mile PR for me, lol) for the first mile. It seems I have a lot of work to do on pacing properly!

So, I will try again at my next 5k to run even (or negative) splits. My hunch is that I will be faster this way.

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

IP: Logged