posted Aug-13-2007 10:45 AM            

I was also hoping to be under 48 for the race as a whole but finished in 49:16. Was kind of feeling bad about it until I talked to some friends who ran who were all at least 2 minutes slower than last year (I was over 3 minutes faster than last year). The winners were also about 30 seconds slower than usual, so the heat was really affecting everyone (saw some people puking and even passed an elite Kenyan, though he was walking). With some reflection, I'm not totally displeased with the race, though I wish I had been a bit tougher and hadn't walked. It is a great race and really well organized given the number of runners that they have to cram into Woods Hole for the start.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 11:20 AM               

I don't want to make excuses for you, and I know that you don't want to either, but...

"The temps were in the 80s and not a cloud in the sky."

..makes a huge difference. It really does. I remember when I was living in Phoenix, they would have races that started a 6 a.m. because of the heat. I would run 10k's 2-3 minutes slower than I would later in the fall. The fact that you needed to stop and walk is an indication of tough it was. We know that you are in shape.

When you can improve your time as much as you did (3 minutes is huge) you know you are heading in the right direction. Fwiw, I ran one that I didn't report (of course) earlier this year in 42's before finally breaking through recently. Also, I ran my still standing 10 miler PR a week after dropping out of a 10k. My attitude towards a diappointing race is that it is just going to make me stronger for the next one, and it usually does.
I promise you that you will race much faster when you catch a nice course with cooler temps. Also the cumulative affect of the miles you've been doing will start showing up more and more. Btw, this was really not a bad effort at all, especially when you consider the affect that conditions had on other runners.

Keep the faith!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 11:58 AM            

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joev9:
Jim, thanks for the encouragement. 24 hours later I am coming to the same conclusion that it wasn't that bad of a race given the conditions and all. I really cannot wait for the cooler temps because I think (hope) that I have some good fast times coming when the temps and humidity drop.

---

Hey Joe...your goal was quite lofty in my opinion. You were trying for a sub 41 ten-k? That is back to back 20:30 efforts while your personal best 5k is not far below 20.

I don't know what McMillan says but I believe you are cabable of running a 42:20 ten-k if the weather was better.
Believe it or not II have my ways of calculating these things.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 02:24 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 03:11 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by joev9:
yeah it was probably a bit of a reach, but McMillan predicts a 41:04 10K from a 19:46 5K which I ran in similar heat on July 15. I do like to have ambitous goals...

---

McMillan also predicts a 42:08 ten k for me based on my 5k time. I could only wish for that. I have never run 10k outside but would be pleased as punch with a 43:20 based on my 0% grade treadmill times coverted to outdoor times via charts. I am curious to the others on this board whether their personal best 5k matches the 10k times that McMillan predicts.

Then again it is 10 seconds per mile slower which is a little bit slower than 5k pace.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 03:27 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Aug-13-2007 04:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichiganFlyer:
I am curious to the others on this board whether their personal best 5k matches the 10k times that McMillan predicts.

---

I am the minority of most posts I've read in that I tend to outrun 5k projections when moving up in distance.

McMillan projects a 40:41 from my 5k PR of 19:35. I have since run 10k's in 40:24, 40:15, and 39:36, all on certified loop courses. Two weeks before the 39:36 I ran a 19:39 5k on the track, which McMillan projects out to a 40:49.

I think it's part genetic and part psychology. To be able to slow the pace down as little as 5-6 seconds a mile makes a big difference to me. If the pace is too hard I fall apart, but if I can stay in that comfortably hard zone I can keep going farther than 5k.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-21-2007 08:27 PM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 03:28 PM            

Background: I do my shorter runs on a 5- mile course I helped measure with the USATF for a race I am involved with so I am comfortable my distance is pretty accurate. A current tempo workout usually yields between 32:30 and 33:00 and the course has a few good inclines. I try to finish the last mile of each run with a "kick" to tell me I still have fresh legs under me.

I have not run a 10k in a few years, but am planning on running one for a tune- up for a Fall marathon and would love to put in a decent time (~ 40:30).

Does anybody have a "running a 10k for dummies" approach to attack a 10k from a strategy perspective (i.e. sample splits, when to pick it up, final kick, etc...)?

Thanks!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 04:06 PM               

It’s true that you have your work cut out for you trying to shave off 2 minutes by year end. However, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, especially considering that you ran 39:54 in January. Come to think of it this creates an interesting “problem”. I believe that everyone else started the year without a sub-40. Should that be the criteria for being added to the “Sub-40 Hopefuls” list on page 1? What do you think, fellow thread members?

In any case you are more than welcome to hang out and go for another one. With more than 4 months remaining you should have a shot with some good training. Good luck.

Gazelle2007,

Welcome. It seems that you are beyond the “running a 10k for dummies” book if you are running tempos between 32:30 and 33:00. Either you are running them too fast or you are sandbagging. I just ran 39:36 for 10k this month (finally) and my short tempo pace is about 6:41, with long tempo at 6:58. This would yield 33:25 and 34:50 for 5 miles at those paces.

What’s your weekly mileage looking like? How about some of your more recent race times? The more info the better, if you’d like some feedback. Out of curiosity, which marathon will you be running? I just added you to the list (see page 1).

Stick around. After a slow start this year, the sub-40's have started to roll in.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-22-2007 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim24315:
What’s your weekly mileage looking like? How about some of your more recent race times? The more info the better, if you’d like some feedback. Out of curiosity, which marathon will you be running?

---

Thanks for adding me to the list! I am planning on running Baystate in MA on 10/14 (along with JoeV) with a 3:10 in sight.

My mileage is creeping into the 50's this week and things feel really good (today that is). I have not raced in a while so I have no recent benchmarks to guage a race performance. The last time I was training (for HM), I ran a 5- miler in 32:23 in '04. I could be sandbagging, but I could be over-doing it on my tempo and putting in more effort than I realize as I wasn't wearing my HRM.

I presume I could get away with what McMillian's calculator puts me at 40:30, but want to make sure I race properly to obtain my best time?

When you ran your 39:36, do you go out at a slower pace for a mile (6:45- 7:00) and then "crank it up" for the rest of the race or go out at 6:30 flat and then provide a push for the last 1.2 to get to sub 40:00?

I am totally new to race planning for a competitive time, so bear with me. Thanks!

IP: Logged

posted Aug-23-2007 08:06 PM               

With your marathon not far ahead, I assume you are going to run the 10k off tempos and other marathon-specific training.

So far as strategy it's always the same for me, which is to run as even a pace as possible. In this last one splits were 6:18, 6:24, 6:23, 6:23, 6:23, 6:23, 1:22 (39:36). I missed the 4 mile marker, but had a combined time of 12:46 for miles 4-5, so I took an everage of those 2 to get mile splits.

In practice I seldom pace them as well as I did in this one, and even when I do get the pacing right my finishing kick is non existent. If I can avoid slowing down in the last mile that is my version of a strong finish. Even or slightly negative splits is usually the best strategy and the way that most records are set.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-26-2007 06:06 PM            

I ran a 40:55 yesterday, in a tune-up 10K for the Portland marathon in October. This was a fairly hilly course, partly on trails, so I'm reasonably happy with my performance. I was pacing for 41ish. Not sure if this performance is quite as good as last summer's 40 flat on an easier course, but I think it is close. It felt like I lost on the order of a minute on the hills.

Maybe a bigger challenge that the hills was my recent lack of sleep... I ran the race on one hour of sleep the night before, < 4/night for the past several days. That, plus, I think, last Sunday's 20 miles in racing flats on mostly concrete, plus sitting at my computer constantly all week, had caused my feet to swell up alarmingly. Actually it hurt to walk. But running felt fine... odd. (I finally got a full night's sleep last night, and my feet are back to normal. It's good to see bones and veins again!)

I don't have a target 10K to break 40, unfortunately. My travel schedule does not mesh well with local races. But I am going to try to find something.

Bob

IP: Logged

posted Aug-26-2007 08:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by norrin radd:

[/B]

---

Hi John,

BTW, you are very correct that Lake Merritt is not a fast course. I tried the 5k today and I failed my goal by a lot (though still PRed), partially because I am still not ready enough to hit 20:30, but also found it difficult with a lot of walkers to dodge, as well as the uneven road that requires a lot of attention.

Anyway, I may try the Sep again and hopefully can build on it.

------------------
Happy running !

My Profile

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 10:47 AM               

Good to hear that you are back training strong. I suspect you are probably close to sub 40 on the right course with decent weather. It was only a few months before I had my breakthrough that I ran a couple in 40:50's.

Good luck at Portland,
Jim

IP: Logged

posted Aug-27-2007 10:24 PM               

Congratulations!

I haven't been on this site for months (maybe once or twice) - I found my way here tonight, and this is the first thread I wanted to check. I knew you were going to do it - just a matter of time.

------------------
brook trout

my profile

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 09:02 AM               

Where in the world have you been? Are you still running? How about an update.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 10:37 AM               

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 11:20 AM               

Here are some certified Bay Area 10k's this month:

3rd - Fleet Feet Labor Day - Davis

16th - Banana Chase - Golden Gate Park (5k is the maraquee event that day, but they also have a new 10k)

30th - Trailblazer Run - Mountain View

There's also National Master's Championship in Paso Robles on 23rd. It's about 150 miles south of San Jose. There is also an open race for non masters.

I will be running the one on Labor Day and probably Paso Robles.

Let me know if you are interested and need more details on any of these.

Which marathon are you running?

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 11:31 AM               

I will be running the Cowtown Sacramento Marathon on Oct 7.

Cheers.

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 01:08 PM               

Life's thrown me a few of those proverbial curve-balls over the past year, and for a while, running just couldn't be a priority

I also got that danged injury last winter after boneheaded-ly running that marathon on insufficient training (ITBS). That took a long time to heal, and so I went from running 40-50 mpw to running zero miles per week, and with the stress and everything else, I just ballooned out over the winter.

I was back up to 19X pounds this spring, but finally got healthy enough that I could resume running. Since then, I've been slowly working up the miles per week - all very slow (I lost all of what little speed I had), and have managed to get the volume back up to near where it was before and the weight's coming off (181 last check).

I'm incredibly slow right now, though - I don't really know where I am because I haven't ran 'hard' since I resumed running, certainly haven't raced - just out slow jogging in 100 degree temps, day after day, trying to shed off this weight and gain some base level of fitness.

The good news is that I'm holding up great. I think that I've turned some corner with the length of time I've been running now - I know longer get the sore knees, the various ligament and tendon pains that come and go - I just feel good all the time, physically - just slow, slow, slow - you wouldn't believe how slow

IP: Logged

posted Aug-28-2007 11:43 PM               

In reading this I get a strong sense that you've got the ship heading in the right direction again. I think you are going about your training the in the right way too. Actually, you trained pretty smart before. You have been a bit too hard on yourself about the marathon experiment. Maybe not the wisest move but that was one instance out of months of following a sensible and effective approach. You weren't very lucky either--the punishment for that one mistake was pretty harsh.

It's good to see you back training and posting again. Better days are coming.

Jim

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2007 10:59 AM               

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

IP: Logged

posted Aug-30-2007 11:16 AM            

IP: Logged