gianmarco
Footballguy
Not many things in this thread he's not right about.
You hit your goal and just had a great race. Put in a great training month this month with some heavy miles and just let er rip. You'll learn something either way.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ran a 10k - Official Thread (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Ned
- Start date
You hit your goal and just had a great race. Put in a great training month this month with some heavy miles and just let er rip. You'll learn something either way.
The Iguana
Footballguy
Also sounds good but I kind of get driven by numbers - it's the math geek in me, IMO. I set 1:45 in my mind right after the November race when I ran 2:10. 1:45 seemed daunting but I didn't want to set it too easy and "settle". Really thought I was reaching and would have been happy at 1:50.
So, my wife also tossed 1:39 out on the way to the gym tonight. Actually she first said 1:35 but that definitely seems nuts. I will have to see how the next month goes for sure but trying for sub 1:40 has a nice ring to it. I just have to talk myself into it. I did a 6.6 with my dog on 3/18 and averaged 7:42/mile. No crowds, no or her runners to push me along - well, Oliver is pretty motivating on his own. It even had a nice negative split in it.
So, I think I want to try to prepare myself mentally to go for it, just have to talk myself into it a bit.
The Iguana
Footballguy
Also plan to run a 5k on 5/11 - the Saturday after the half. Trying to convince myself I can do that in under 22:00. Pretty sure I'm developing a problem!
MAC_32
Footballguy
It's just the drugs we've been infecting your system with for the last several months. We got @gianmarco in 18, so this year was your turn.
gianmarco
Footballguy
The Iguana
Footballguy
I blame/credit you for me being here. I decided to run that half marathon last fall and popped in here to see what info I might find to help try to survive. Low and behold, I found an old friend posting along so starting reading more and asking questions...
ChiefD
Footballguy
Just putting this here for future reference so I could see this in black and white. Mile by mile pace/HR chart for Carmel:
Mile 1: 8:53 pace, HR 151
Mile 2: 8:46 pace, HR 158
Mile 3: 9:02 pace, HR 163
Mile 4: 8:57 pace, HR 163
Mile 5: 9:16 pace, HR 163
Mile 6: 9:13 pace, HR 160
Mile 7: 8:56 pace, HR 162
Mile 8: 9:02 pace, HR 166
Mile 9: 9:06 pace, HR 165
Mile 10: 9:07 pace, HR 169
Mile 11: 9:03 pace, HR 164
Mile 12: 9:04 pace, HR 166
Mile 13: 8:53 pace, HR 166
Mile 14: 9:09 pace, HR 163
Mile 15: 9:10 pace, HR 163
Mile 16: 8:58 pace, HR 164
Mile 17: 9:07 pace, HR 165
Mile 18: 9:06 pace, HR 169
Mile 19: 9:19 pace, HR 169
Mile 20: 9:19 pace, HR 169
Mile 21: 9:20 pace, HR 170
Mile 22: 9:09 pace, HR 171
Mile 23: 9:11 pace, HR 170
Mile 24: 9:21 pace, HR 171
Mile 25: 9:07 pace, HR 171
Mile 26: 9:06 pace, HR 173
Mile .2: 8:50 pace, HR 174
Well, you can definitely tell where the hills were.
Mile 1: 8:53 pace, HR 151
Mile 2: 8:46 pace, HR 158
Mile 3: 9:02 pace, HR 163
Mile 4: 8:57 pace, HR 163
Mile 5: 9:16 pace, HR 163
Mile 6: 9:13 pace, HR 160
Mile 7: 8:56 pace, HR 162
Mile 8: 9:02 pace, HR 166
Mile 9: 9:06 pace, HR 165
Mile 10: 9:07 pace, HR 169
Mile 11: 9:03 pace, HR 164
Mile 12: 9:04 pace, HR 166
Mile 13: 8:53 pace, HR 166
Mile 14: 9:09 pace, HR 163
Mile 15: 9:10 pace, HR 163
Mile 16: 8:58 pace, HR 164
Mile 17: 9:07 pace, HR 165
Mile 18: 9:06 pace, HR 169
Mile 19: 9:19 pace, HR 169
Mile 20: 9:19 pace, HR 169
Mile 21: 9:20 pace, HR 170
Mile 22: 9:09 pace, HR 171
Mile 23: 9:11 pace, HR 170
Mile 24: 9:21 pace, HR 171
Mile 25: 9:07 pace, HR 171
Mile 26: 9:06 pace, HR 173
Mile .2: 8:50 pace, HR 174
Well, you can definitely tell where the hills were.
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
@BassNBrew brought up the negative split strategy for marathons the other day and I've been thinking and reading about this a little more recently.
It seems to me the predominate take on this issue is slight negative splits are preferred. Honestly, I'm skeptical.
Let's assume a marathon where such adverse conditions as rising temperatures, wind directions, and elevation changes aren't factors.
Also, without getting in depth, let's assume relatively small split differences. I think we'd all agree that large positive or large negative splits are intuitively bad ideas.
For negative split, I'm referring to a strategy where you purposely run slower than average goal pace in the early miles to conserve energy and purposely plan to then run above average goal pace in the second half. Positive split strategy is purposefully running faster in the first half planning to slow in the second half.
By "optimal" I mean giving you the greatest chance of achieving your race goal regardless of downside risk.
Which of the following statements do you believe are true? You can believe in more than one.
1. A slight negative split strategy has been scientifically proven to be optimal.
2. A slight negative split strategy is likely optimal but the science is fuzzy.
3. A slight negative split strategy is likely better because winners of marathons often negative split.
4. A slight negative split strategy is a good idea because you likely won't be fully warmed up for the first few miles.
5. A slight negative split strategy is a good idea because it reduces the risk of having a terrible race. Nothing is worse than bonking with many miles to go. It helps you salvage a race with a "B" goal.
6. An even split strategy is optimal.
7. A slight positive split strategy is optimal because it helps you to mentally hang in there when you know you have time "banked".
8. A slightly positive split is optimal because it evens out the effort a little. It will be harder to run faster as you fatigue.
9. All runners have different minds and bodies. The most important thing is for the runner to be mentally and physically comfortable with a plan.
I am open to changing my mind but I think 1 and 3 are false. 2 is probably false. 4 might be reasonable if only slower for a few miles. 5 makes complete sense. I am open to 6 and 8 being true. 7 might be true for some people. I think 9 is true.
It seems to me the predominate take on this issue is slight negative splits are preferred. Honestly, I'm skeptical.
Let's assume a marathon where such adverse conditions as rising temperatures, wind directions, and elevation changes aren't factors.
Also, without getting in depth, let's assume relatively small split differences. I think we'd all agree that large positive or large negative splits are intuitively bad ideas.
For negative split, I'm referring to a strategy where you purposely run slower than average goal pace in the early miles to conserve energy and purposely plan to then run above average goal pace in the second half. Positive split strategy is purposefully running faster in the first half planning to slow in the second half.
By "optimal" I mean giving you the greatest chance of achieving your race goal regardless of downside risk.
Which of the following statements do you believe are true? You can believe in more than one.
1. A slight negative split strategy has been scientifically proven to be optimal.
2. A slight negative split strategy is likely optimal but the science is fuzzy.
3. A slight negative split strategy is likely better because winners of marathons often negative split.
4. A slight negative split strategy is a good idea because you likely won't be fully warmed up for the first few miles.
5. A slight negative split strategy is a good idea because it reduces the risk of having a terrible race. Nothing is worse than bonking with many miles to go. It helps you salvage a race with a "B" goal.
6. An even split strategy is optimal.
7. A slight positive split strategy is optimal because it helps you to mentally hang in there when you know you have time "banked".
8. A slightly positive split is optimal because it evens out the effort a little. It will be harder to run faster as you fatigue.
9. All runners have different minds and bodies. The most important thing is for the runner to be mentally and physically comfortable with a plan.
I am open to changing my mind but I think 1 and 3 are false. 2 is probably false. 4 might be reasonable if only slower for a few miles. 5 makes complete sense. I am open to 6 and 8 being true. 7 might be true for some people. I think 9 is true.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
In my limited experience, both for myself and seeing what others have done, I've yet to see someone bomb a race because of going out too slowly and trying to speed up too much or leaving too much out there.
I've seen more than enough failures going out too fast and blowing up before race end.
I will concede that we've seen some good race results with positive splits as well.
I've seen more than enough failures going out too fast and blowing up before race end.
I will concede that we've seen some good race results with positive splits as well.
ChiefD
Footballguy
@Juxtatarot - My first gut reaction is that there are so many internal variables in a marathon (so taking out the external ones you already described). With the number one being:
How do you feel that day?
I believe that #9 is probably the most true statement on your list.
You run what you are able to run on any given day.
How do you feel that day?
I believe that #9 is probably the most true statement on your list.
You run what you are able to run on any given day.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Well put. I don't think negative splitting is necessarily the best way to optimize your performance that day, but it is the best way to optimize your chances of not blowing up. Should you take a riskier approach that day? It depends on a number of factors. Your goal for that race and your comfort level with failing probably being #1 and #2.
It may well depend on your training. If you are used to doing progressively faster intervals, progressively faster miles, or finishing your training runs with an extra kick, then your may very well be training your body to perform best when a negative split plan. On the other hand, you could train to keep your HR pegged at say 160 and let your pace erode over time. Your body is going to adapt and you'll begin to run all the miles faster at that HR even though your pace will still erode.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
I come at this from my focus on HR. The risk of #5 is significantly lessened by tracking HR data. If the body is overworking early, the HR will show it, and a smart runner will back off. In the last couple of marathons where I've seriously struggled, I knew within the first couple of miles that trouble loomed and did what I could to make reasonable adjustments.
So it comes down to #9. We can do what we can physically ...based on what we've trained to do. As I see it, the HR reflects that. Mental toughness will still play a strong part, but from a physical perspective, we can't do what we can't do. I'd summarize as saying the HR sets parameters. Mental strength and planning, then, can dictate where we end up within those parameters - whether we don't challenge ourselves enough, or whether we push our limits (or even beyond) and leave it all out on the course.
Juxt, Thanks for posting this and I will dig in late tonight. I have numerous thoughts I want to bounce off of people.
I will briefly throw this out for people to chew on...
How do I know I paid too much for a car (99% of the time)? I drove it off the lot.
How do I know I ran less than an optimum race (99% of the time)? I finished it.
Failure is easy to see, 100% of the time 100% success is hard to know.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
I spent 33 years of my life as a positive splitter. I've spent the last 3 years as a negative. Theres more to it than just that, but these last 3 years have been substantially more successful than the prior 33.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Do you plan to negative split and purposely start slower than goal pace? I think I've negative split only one marathon but I've probably negative split a number of half marathons. I'd have to go back and check to be sure. However, those situations were when I've surprised myself by having more in the tank in the second half and was able to speed up and do better than planned.
I've never purposely tried to run slower than goal pace in the beginning. Honestly, I think it would be tough for me. I probably wouldn't be able to help adding up the seconds that I was "behind" as the race progressed and those seconds would weigh on me. But I understand and respect how different racers are different. I think this is what I was getting at with #9.
Maybe I should try it sometime though just to be sure.
MAC_32
Footballguy
I don't have enough samples, but my pr half sticks out. I intentionally started off slow then slowly started ramping it up. I hit a rough patch with > 3 miles to go but was able to stave off a total bonk and still get my B goal. Had I started off at or above goal pace I would have hit that rough patch sooner and there's absolutely no way I hang on like I did.
Every negative split will be a success. Well outside of forgetting your shoe and going back to get it or stopping to take a dump.
There's an optimum time (x) our body can cover
distance given the training load we plan on. If we were realistically setting out a race goal based to hit time x, there are three outcomes. To optimistic and we fail. To soft and don't achieve X. Dead on and we hit X exactly (which should be rare). Based on attempting to set our goal exactly at X, the expected outcome is failure about half the time and to soft of a goal half of the time (excluding a small percentage of the time we are dead on).We hate to fail, so we generally set out goals some less than X. Eventually if you set you goal far enough away from X, you can virtually hit it every time. The key to setting our goal is to meet our required expectation of success. That's going to vary from person to person. Some people can chase goals that aren't realistically obtainable and are thrilled on the rare occasions they hit them and use the multiple failures to build on. Others need to win more often or aren't the gambling type to put all there money on one roulette square. Most fall in between.
MAC_32
Footballguy
If you only have one goal then I think it makes sense to go out 'hot.' That was the case with me in my '16 marathon. My pr was 4:16, set 15 years prior, when I trained like a moron. I was going to pr. But I didnt care about the pr. I cared about the bq. So I chose a strategy that would likely fail but even if it does I'll still have a bench mark. Which is exactly as it excruciatingly happened.
But if you have multiple tiers of goals then I dont think this strategy is correct. You have no bail out. If you hit that rough patch too soon then it's all over and the death march commences. Sure if we were all robots that know what we are capable of then we wouldnt set a goal that's above our fitness. We arent though. So if you have multiple goals I think the negative split approach is your best chance for success. It gives you an opportunity to run down your A goal while also setting you up to hit your B goal if the pace is just too much.
But if you have multiple tiers of goals then I dont think this strategy is correct. You have no bail out. If you hit that rough patch too soon then it's all over and the death march commences. Sure if we were all robots that know what we are capable of then we wouldnt set a goal that's above our fitness. We arent though. So if you have multiple goals I think the negative split approach is your best chance for success. It gives you an opportunity to run down your A goal while also setting you up to hit your B goal if the pace is just too much.
Zasada
Footballguy
Love this post.
This is why I'm torn with my upcoming marathon. I'm feeling really confident in my training, and it wouldn't be unrealistic to target 3:50 (ref my Houston "good result, terrible process" time was 3:57, with 15 weeks of additional training I should improve, right?).
But it would be catastrophic to have another terrible-process race after all this training. So I'm targeting <4. I'm more than 50% confident I'll be leaving time on the table if things go as planned but I just can't have another Houston. I'm actually hoping to negative split because I want to run so conservative from the start that I totally minimize the risk of having to walk later in the race. And if I have the energy I can up the pace 10K from the finish.
But anyway this post above is the best.
Zasada
Footballguy
Really? I thought most/all marathon PRs have been set with negative splits?
pbm107
Footballguy
This is where I am, it increases one’s probability of success without much loss in performance if you underestimated your fitness.
The challenge is knowing what you’re capable of, and that is more difficult if you are a newer rapidly improving runner.
gianmarco
Footballguy
I understand the thought process here but there's part of this that I think is being overlooked.Every negative split will be a success. Well outside of forgetting your shoe and going back to get it or stopping to take a dump.
There's an optimum time (x) our body can cover
We hate to fail, so we generally set out goals some less than X. Eventually if you set you goal far enough away from X, you can virtually hit it every time. The key to setting our goal is to meet our required expectation of success. That's going to vary from person to person. Some people can chase goals that aren't realistically obtainable and are thrilled on the rare occasions they hit them and use the multiple failures to build on. Others need to win more often or aren't the gambling type to put all there money on one roulette square. Most fall in between.
Just because you negative split doesn't mean you are leaving time out on the course (or at least a large part of time). That's part of the benefit of negative splitting is that you can assess mid-race where you are and can speed up over the 2nd half or even towards the end if you have that time left in you. It may not hit that optimal time of X, but it approaches it and can get pretty darn close. If I run a HM and go too slow for the first 10 miles, I can run close to a 5K effort for the last 3.1 if I've got it in me and get a lot, if not all, of that back.
However, go out too fast and there is no adjustment that can be made. The science behind that is that if you go too fast, you burn those anaerobic stores and those don't come back during the race. They are gone. Even if you slow down, you simply can't get that back and finish well. Sure, you can positive split and still have a good race, but that margin for error is very thin AND the result of being wrong is a blow-up. With a negative split, you can similarly approach the same finish without nearly the risk of blowing up.
And as pointed out above, there's a reason most of the WRs set at various distances have been set as negative splits, including the latest mind-blowing marathon world record.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
Man, reading this makes me want to completely reboot and start over.
I might make that my 2020 goal. I believe @bushdocda did it this way and stuck to this for a while. He's certainly reaping the benefits of it now.
I might make that my 2020 goal. I believe @bushdocda did it this way and stuck to this for a while. He's certainly reaping the benefits of it now.
Zasada
Footballguy
I do have some strength/speed work in my plan every week but most of my runs are around MAF levels. And I've even noticed over the last 8 weeks that I can run my "easy" runs now faster than I could before -- at the same HR. My three weekly easy runs (plus a LSD when I have one scheduled) are all done by HR now and not pace.
pbm107
Footballguy
Busy week for me, so I don’t think I’ll have time for a race report. First mistake was in my race registration, I don’t know what time I put in for my estimated finish time but I must have screwed that up. I was in the 2nd corral and while I was there I saw the 1:40 pacers lined up far in front of me. I did a lot of weaving the first 2 miles and passed about 200 runners.
Inspired by the race performances on Saturday, I went to the grocery store to purchase some beet juice. I intended on purchasing the same juice I had for my 7 mile Tempo. They were out of the juice I wanted and purchased a beet/orange blend. Well during the race around mile 6 I experienced some gas pain, so I skipped the gel I had. In mile 11 when I tried to pickup the pace that gas pain got more intense and was forced to slow down.
I finished in 1:25:54, 6th in my age group and 84th overall. Not a bad effort, my goal in the fall is to PR my half.
MAC_32
Footballguy
gianmarco
Footballguy
MAC_32
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I was hoping we would discuss this. I think @Zasada is making the same point above. This point is often made in favor of negative splitting in articles I read through a Google search on the topic.
One reason I am skeptical (again, I might be wrong) is the primary goal of an elite marathoner (and also for many shorter distance elite racers) is to win the race. We normally (always?) see them race with the pack before breaking out later in the race. They are getting a drafting advantage too. They don’t seem to be following the optimal pacing strategy for reasons unrelated to the dynamics of a race.
When considering this today, I thought about the Nike Breaking2 project when three runners tried to break 2:00 in near ideal conditions.
I thought when Eliud Kipchoge ran his 2:00:25, did he try to negative split? His splits are at the link. After the first 5K (one second slower than goal pace) he banked 6 seconds the next 5K split, then ran fairly even before slowing late. He didn’t try to take the first half “easy” and then speed up.
Now this probably means very little to us normal runners. I just find it interesting to think about in kind of a theoretical sense.
Edit: I read those splits wrong. They were cumulative. Fixed my post.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
Another semi-relevant article that warns about going out too fast.
ETA -- Here's 2 more articles that I just read and enjoyed:
What enables endurance?
Burn fat to go fast
ETA -- Here's 2 more articles that I just read and enjoyed:
What enables endurance?
Burn fat to go fast
Last edited by a moderator:
SFBayDuck
Footballguy
I know we've discussed MAF a bunch in here in the past, but it's been awhile. If you're really interested, search the Endurance Planet podcast as they've had dozens of episodes of their Ask the Coaches show that address MAF, and have had Maffetone on several times. I've listened to them all (I think @-OZ- is also a regular listener) so am pretty familiar, and I've read his big yellow book as well.
I know a lot of people get hung up on his formulaic approach, and I get that. 180-your age doesn't work for everyone. But the principle is sound in that many runners under-develop their aerobic base, and exclusively focusing on it for a period of time will make you faster at all HRs. And his hypothesis is that intensity will inhibit that progress, to a point. Then when you plateau, that's when you have to change stimuli. If you've already maxed the volume you can run (based on available time for most of us non-pros), then start mixing in intensity. It's also important to note that his focus is really on health, and how maximizing that will improve your performance. But with a few notable exceptions there is a reason that elites aren't following MAF, and that's because the type of training required to be elite just isn't "healthy".
Side note: I know the article is a couple of years old, but fun for me to see as Larisa was living here at the time and I used to see her on the trails occasionally, but she's since moved away.
bushdocda
Footballguy
4 and 5 make sense to me personally. #9 rules overall though as all have different levels of fitness and levels of desire. The book Endurance referenced here before digs into the science of effort and pain. I am no where near comfortable with the pain of ‘go out hard and hold on’ today. I think elites and experienced runners can do this and for them a negative split is occasionally more a product of race day conditions/conditioning breaking right and they were able to hold on and achieve an even or slight negative split.
Brony
Footballguy
Agree with this. Much more likely to have success with a final kick that is balls to the wall, BMF mode than to start that way. I realize that for a marathon, you can't call the last 2 to 5 miles a kick, but I thought gianmarco's logic applies.
-OZ-
Footballguy
as expected, spot on.
I started the approach 5 years ago, my MAF HR was 148 (180-37, add 5 because I didn't have injuries and had ran since I was in HS, with a handful of marathons and a few tri's). This was when I was training for the full IM and needed more easy days than pounding. Most of the time I just backed off when the HR went to 150. I distinctly remember the first run, I was around 10 minutes per mile whereas low 8s was my usual. I hated it but figured I'd give it a real try. Eventually I got my one MAF mile down to 830, and a few years later I actually went under 8 (that was probably in my top 5 "proud" moments of running because while it wasn't a race, it meant I had actually built up my aerobic base). Through it I qualified for Boston (by like 30 seconds, not enough to actually register, but still a 15 minute PR), and got faster. I still have a long ways to go, but now my easy runs are 30 seconds faster than my usual pace was in my 30s. I do need to mix in more tempo runs if I actually want to become a decent runner, and my "MAF" is still just below 150 instead of the 142 it would be if I kept the true 180 formula.
Bottom Line: MAF, or zone 2, or just taking most of your runs easy, WORKS.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
What do you think about that Joe Friel trial at the end of the article?
If I would take a guess for me, those 20 minutes would have a heart rate average in the high 160s. 90% would be in the neighborhood of a 150 MAHR. For most people in this thread my guess is it would result in a MAHR they normally wouldn’t exceed when not doing speed or tempo stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
I'd lean towards the bold being true, but really 9 is the point.
My best marathon was one where I sort of warmed up the first few miles, pushed hard for 10, hung in the for 10, then gave it what I had the remaining miles. More than a slight positive split. But if you asked what I think is the best plan, I'd say even pacing with a slight negative split.
edit: I think this is why I love triathlons. The swim is a good warmup, the bike gets the legs moving (and let's face it, the bike is flat out fun), then you just hang on for the run while you're nice and warmed up. 5ks blow chunks.
Last edited by a moderator:
-OZ-
Footballguy
It might work for most, it would be low for me. It would probably yield around a 145. Certainly in the range of what I think is optimal for most of my runs but a little low.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Wouldn’t it be higher for you? You did a tempo March 1 and your heart rate was in the high 160s. Your MAPR from his trial should be higher than mine.
bushdocda
Footballguy
@gianmarco Yep Lots of 2016 was at MAF I think from around 10mim/mi to around 8:30. Lately I have been sticking my long runs at MAF, easy runs a good bit under and workouts wherever they end up. Big help in building volume for me and I will return to it at some point when I need a change.
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco
Footballguy
I just played around with some numbers. Looking at this, I know which I would choose, but maybe some of you would choose differently.
Looking at a HM, let's assume my optimal pace where I would get my best time was me running at an 8:00 min pace. That's a finish time of 1:44:48.
If I ran the first 10 miles at an 8:15 pace, then I would have to finish the final 5K at a 7:24 pace to finish with the same time. Incidentally, looking at a race pace predictor calculator, if my HM pace is 8:00, then I should be able to run a 5K at a 7:22 pace. So that's pretty darn close. Of course, it would be pretty difficult to hit an ideal 5K pace, but I don't think it would be that far off. So, maybe we are 20-30 seconds slower overall than the optimum.
If I ran the first 10 miles at a 7:48 pace (which is about 15K pace), then I would "only" have to finish the final 5K at an 8:36 pace. However, having blown up already once, the thought of having to maintain even that pace for 3.1 miles in that state would be a huge challenge, IMO. Much more difficult than trying to hit a 5K pace as above.
I don't think there's a right answer for all, but I DO think there is a right answer for each of us.
Looking at a HM, let's assume my optimal pace where I would get my best time was me running at an 8:00 min pace. That's a finish time of 1:44:48.
If I ran the first 10 miles at an 8:15 pace, then I would have to finish the final 5K at a 7:24 pace to finish with the same time. Incidentally, looking at a race pace predictor calculator, if my HM pace is 8:00, then I should be able to run a 5K at a 7:22 pace. So that's pretty darn close. Of course, it would be pretty difficult to hit an ideal 5K pace, but I don't think it would be that far off. So, maybe we are 20-30 seconds slower overall than the optimum.
If I ran the first 10 miles at a 7:48 pace (which is about 15K pace), then I would "only" have to finish the final 5K at an 8:36 pace. However, having blown up already once, the thought of having to maintain even that pace for 3.1 miles in that state would be a huge challenge, IMO. Much more difficult than trying to hit a 5K pace as above.
I don't think there's a right answer for all, but I DO think there is a right answer for each of us.
tri-man 47
Footballguy
I took note of that as well. Pure MAF has me at a HR under 120! But the Friel trial would be more like 145, I believe. My slow, easy-breathing pace puts my HR in the 140s, and I'm OK with that. I just don't have an interest in running slow enough to put the HR in the 120s ...I feel that doing so makes my stride so abnormal that I'm doing more harm than good.
@Brony - which race is your company sponsoring? I believe the Cosley Zoo Run in Wheaton is on June 1st. I'm hoping to catch a race somewhere around mid-May to early June.
gianmarco
Footballguy
tri-man 47
Footballguy
Ah, yes. That thing. 
Just beat me to it. Winning is more important than time to most of these guys. Typically a winning race strategy is to hang with the pack and then drop the hammer at a point where you think you can hold them off to the finish.
Assuming you are trained for the distance, the science should support going out at a pace just below your threshold so you don't burn through all those stores. Let's say this is 90% of your peak effort for talking purposes. In theory you should run at 90% from the start until the point you can successful ratchet up the speed and safely run above the redline until finish. While you are at this 90% you should see some fade in your pace from the start resulting in a big positive split. At the point you know your stores are going to carry you to the finish, you can increase that effort above 90%, this is going to result in pace that are lower than you first put out. Eventually you can peg your meter at 100% for the last .2ths which is why most people have the faster split then. In the end, the time gained back when you were over 90% could result in a negative split or there may not be enough distance left and you end up with a positive split.
5k - 25:00
10k - 25:15
15K - 25:30
20k - 25:45
21k time of 106.7 mins
25k - 26:00
30k - 25:30
35k - 25:00
40k - 24:30
42k - 23:00 pace
2nd 21k time of 105 mins
There's a negative split of about two minutes where you've let your pace degrade over the first 60% of the race.
Elites should see less degradation and be able to work in the red zone longer meaning that their 5k paces would become almost identical.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Maybe... I should try it just for the hell of it. I was thinking of my tempo from the other day where the highest my HR was for any mile was 157 - that was a tad longer than 30 minutes. My last 5k was in the low 160s, but that tempo you're looking did get into the high 160s.
Might help to do this rested?
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
It isnt apples to apples but I just cross referenced chief's failure in Chicago vs his success in Indy and his Chicago race sorta followed this approach. It ended badly.
He kept the hr down a few notches over the first half of this race and shaved 25 minutes.
Last edited by a moderator:
