Send in the Clowns - BAC 10K Challenge

menoscemo

04072511 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, and what race you believe was a better personal achievement, it still doesnt impact on what was the better actual performance. People may pride themselves on the hard work that went into a 3:29 marathon for example (and so they should), and may see it as their best personal achievement, but if that same person can run an 800m in 2:20 then it doesn't matter how much pride he/she takes from that marathon, it still doesn't change which performance is comfortably the stronger.

Sorry Krusty for the Hijack but I can't let that go.
I don't think you are getting my point 0407... It's not just my opinion.
Let's for example compare my 5k (19:12) and Mara (3:10:42) PBs. According to IAAF tables my 5k score 230pts and my Mara score 330pts. Apparently my 5k time is equivalent to a 3:30 marathon, yet I am 20 minutes faster.

How comes then that the Vdot calculators predict a 3:03 Marathon on a 19:12 5k then? How Come Mcmillan predict a 3:07 Marathon based on the same?
For me it is simple-the VDOT and McMillan calculators assume you are well trained for a distance and predict what you should achieve if properly trained.
The IAAF tables score you points on what most athletes actually achieve, and thus rates Marathon/Half marathon times too highly since most people go into long distance races under prepared and the ones better prepared score higher points. Mcmillan or Vdot are much better predictors for someone like Krusty who has put in the necessary training. According to Vdot Krusty would need a 77:30 ish HM to get a 2:42 mara. I think that's much more accurate in his case than a 74-75 HM as per the IAAF tables.

Pisco Sour

menoscemo wrote: »

Sorry Krusty for the Hijack but I can't let that go.
I don't think you are getting my point 0407... It's not just my opinion.
Let's for example compare my 5k (19:12) and Mara (3:10:42) PBs. According to IAAF tables my 5k score 230pts and my Mara score 330pts. Apparently my 5k time is equivalent to a 3:30 marathon, yet I am 20 minutes faster.

How comes then that the Vdot calculators predict a 3:03 Marathon on a 19:12 5k then? How Come Mcmillan predict a 3:07 Marathon based on the same?
For me it is simple-the VDOT and McMillan calculators assume you are well trained for a distance and predict what you should achieve if properly trained.
The IAAF tables score you points on what most athletes actually achieve, and thus rates Marathon/Half marathon times too highly since most people go into long distance races under prepared and the ones better prepared score higher points. Mcmillan or Vdot are much better predictors for someone like Krusty who has put in the necessary training. According to Vdot Krusty would need a 77:30 ish HM to get a 2:42 mara. I think that's much more accurate in his case than a 74-75 HM as per the IAAF tables.

Do you really believe a 19.12 to equal a 3:03 marathon? Most people running that sort of marathon time would be running high 17, low 18 for 5k. Mid 18 at worst. I've always had a bit of a problem with McMillan. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Looking at those results it seems like you may be underperforming a bit over 5k. When's the last time you ran one? You should be good now to run a quicker 5k than that surely?

I thought I was paying a compliment by thinking that he is capable of running 75. I do apologise.

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

I thought I was paying a compliment by thinking that he is capable of running 75. I do apologise.

Haha, thanks for that. It's not really a compliment if you are reviewing data in a table and passing it on. You're just conveying information. It's like saying: you are 11 stone, therefore, you should be capable of weighing 70kgs.

Now if you said something like:
"With those sunglasses perched on top of your head, you look just like James Franco", that'd be a compliment.

<tongue in cheek reply>

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

"With those sunglasses perched on top of your head, you look just like James Franco", that'd be a compliment.

Had to google who that is. I'm really not up to date with the modern glitz and glamour of Hollywood like todays youth are!

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

Had to google who that is. I'm really not up to date with the modern glitz and glamour of Hollywood like todays youth are!

That's ok. I had to google 'hunky men' to find a suitable example. Now all my work colleagues believe I'm batting for the other side.

RayCun

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

That's ok. I had to google 'hunky men' to find a suitable example. Now all my work colleagues believe I'm batting for the other side.

Are you wearing your wife's clothes again?

menoscemo

04072511 wrote: »

Looking at those results it seems like you may be underperforming a bit over 5k. When's the last time you ran one? You should be good now to run a quicker 5k than that surely?

Last 5k was just before christmas and was even slower than the PB (19:26). I'd like to think I could run sub 19 now but then again I also think I could run a marathon quicker if I trained for one and had a taper

It's just my opinion but the IAAF seems weighted in favour of longer distances. The IAAF rates my 10k PB (40:44) as stronger than my 5k PB, but my 10k is from ages agao and I know I can go sub 40 now. It's pretty ridiculous that McMillan and VDot see my 5k PB as my strongest one yet the IAAF tables rate it the weakest one.

Krusty_Clown

RayCun wrote: »

Are you wearing your wife's clothes again?

I may be; why? Just as you can be a male homosexual without wearing women's clothing, you can also be a transvestite without having a penchant for the same sex.
Wow, this training log is headed to strange places..

Pisco Sour

menoscemo wrote: »

Last 5k was just before christmas and was even slower than the PB (19:26). I'd like to think I could run sub 19 now but then again I also think I could run a marathon quicker if I trained for one and had a taper

It's just my opinion but the IAAF seems weighted in favour of longer distances. The IAAF rates my 10k PB (40:44) as stronger than my 5k PB, but my 10k is from ages agao and I know I can go sub 40 now. It's pretty ridiculous that McMillan and VDot see my 5k PB as my strongest one yet the IAAF tables rate it the weakest one.

Well I guess use which ever tables suits you best, but I can assure you your 5K is anything but your strongest. There are people here that are 15-20 minutes behind you over the marathon who would run almost as fast as you over 5k. IMO the IAAF tables has it right here and that it is significantly weaker than your marathon, but is it a surprise? How much actual 5K training do you do? Any speedwork? If you are training for ultras then it is natural that you will excel more over the longer distances.

Krusty_Clown

Badreputation wrote: »

Hi Krusty. Reading your report with great interest. Great running.. .Unreal. Best of luck in Boston. Think you helped me get over the line in Dublin last Oct under 3:15.

Thanks for visiting Badreputation. Hopefully the above debates won't have scared you off. Yes myself, Liamo and Lecheile paced the 3:15 group in Dublin last October and a damn fine experience it was too (except for the rain!). Did you hit your target that day? Will you be back for more DCM this winter?

Dory Dory

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I may be; why? Just as you can be a male homosexual without wearing women's clothing, you can also be a transvestite without having a penchant for the same sex.
Wow, this training log is headed to strange places..

Where's dpop when you need him....:(;)

Krusty_Clown

Dory Dory wrote: »

Where's dpop when you need him....:(;)

Probably launching an assault on the White House, to have the Irish Government removed from office, because of threatened Coilte land ownership disputes.
Now, was he going to Washington state or Washington DC?! I can't quite remember!

Dory Dory

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Probably launching an assault on the White House, to have the Irish Government removed from office, because of threatened Coilte land ownership disputes.
Now, was he going to Washington state or Washington DC?! I can't quite remember!

DC.

Badreputation

Ya... blew up in Rotterdam in April last year so was delighted with sub 3:15. Thinking about Dublin this year and going closer to 3hrs (as close as possible!!). Just discovered Boards recently and the info/advice from ye all is excellent on this site. Gr8 reading.

Krusty_Clown

Today: 11 miles with 3 x 1 mile @5k pace

I hate this session, but I love having this session done. It's a love/hate thing. I think this is the fifth time I've done it, and it doesn't get any easier. The real challenge is that I do it faster than my current 5k pace (closer to 3k pace). Legs have been a little tired since the race on Sunday, so that didn't make it any easier, but my mantra seemed to help with the motivation. My mantra is a form of determined resignation; you have to do it, it will end.

Three easy miles brought me to the flat-lands and my first concern was the breeze. Again a 6 m/s fresh breeze didn't hamper too much at easy pace, but at sub 5:20 mile pace, it makes life hard. So I ran the first half of each interval into the wind, and at the half way point, turned back and had the wind at my back. You lose some time stopping and turning around, but without immediate access to a track (I got a generous invite to a mile repeat session on a track this evening, but unfortunately had prior engagements). So, what can you do? It will end.

Recovery is 50%-90% and on this occasion, I went with 75%, which is 3:44 (based on a 5:20 pace). I see that the last time I did this session I went with a longer recovery (90%) so there's a plus point.

Mile 1: 5:19, HR=173
Mile 2: 5:19, HR=167
Mile 3: 5:17, HR=169

In each case the first half into the wind was really tough, with a near-impersceptible climb (about two feet ), then on the turnabout, it was just a case of hanging on until you hear the beeps. I ran it better than the last time, with a shorter recovery, so happy with the outcome. I ran an extra mile through Corkagh Park on the way back to work, just to wrap-up the 1,000 miles for the year, but was well shagged by the time I got back to work. Happy (easy) days from here until Patriot's day. Now it's really taper time!

Summary: 11 Miles in 1:17:49

Krusty_Clown

Today: Good Friday?

A reading from the letters of Krustacious to the Garminites
...and on the 5th day, the Lord did say, You shalt not sleep properly for the 5th day, and though you may take tablets of sleep, they will but render thye heade groggy and thou shalt remain awakened. Thy technology will fail thee, and though you walk in the valley of Clondalkin, thy shadowe will appear in Kildare and will trace its ghostly passage through fields and vallyes and lakes, spreading thy tale of gloom.

Summary: One tired clown + one strange watch = maybe around 5.5 recovery miles

BeepBeep67

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Today: one strange watch

Never noticed the continental shelf in Clondalkin before

ultraman1

dats the start of the donadea 10k...

Krusty_Clown

ultraman1 wrote: »

dats the start of the donadea 10k...

Yeah, I had noticed that. Maybe the watch is trying to tell me something?
There's a pot of haunted gold, or a corpse or something.. You never know with those Donadea lads.

Krusty_Clown

Today: 7 mile aerobic run with 10 9 8 7 x 150m strides

Thankfully managed a good 7 hours of sleep last night, so feeling back to normal. An early trip to Roscommon meant another opportunity to trip around the single-track bothrins that pass for roads around the town (love running these roads!), with just the occasional crow, cow and sheep for company. I lost count of the number of strides I managed to do, but that's ok, as I didn't remember how many I was supposed to do anyway (10 as it turns out). Legs beginning to feel a little refreshed (I first noticed this when I jogged up a few flights of stairs for the first time in 3 months), so I had to slow down a little, so I could speed up for the strides. An easy 13 miles tomorrow around Moate Park.

Summary: 7.25 miles in 49 mins, @6:45/mile, HR=141

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

04072511 wrote: »

Do you really believe a 19.12 to equal a 3:03 marathon? Most people running that sort of marathon time would be running high 17, low 18 for 5k. Mid 18 at worst. I've always had a bit of a problem with McMillan. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Large brush you are using there, i would be just under sub 19min 5k time this year and ran a 3:05 2 weeks ago and was probably better than that result suggests.
Someone running a high 17 or low 18 (if trained) should be well able for much lower than a 3:03 in a marathon. I have always found McMillan close enough.

Pisco Sour

Vaughn Easy Stepchildren wrote: »

Large brush you are using there, i would be just under sub 19min 5k time this year and ran a 3:05 2 weeks ago and was probably better than that result suggests.
Someone running a high 17 or low 18 (if trained) should be well able for much lower than a 3:03 in a marathon. I have always found McMillan close enough.

And what is your training focused on? I'm assuming marathon. If two people, one over 5K and one over marathon, put in equal amounts of training over their specific distance, then a 19:xx 5K would be an inferior performance to a 3:03 marathon. If somebody is focused on a marathon and is doing no speedwork then there can't be great expectations to run fast over 5K.

TheRoadRunner

04072511 wrote: »

And what is your training focused on? I'm assuming marathon. If two people, one over 5K and one over marathon, put in equal amounts of training over their specific distance, then a 19:xx 5K would be an inferior performance to a 3:03 marathon. If somebody is focused on a marathon and is doing no speedwork then there can't be great expectations to run fast over 5K.

True but there are sometimes exceptions. My 2 fastest 5ks both came within a month after my target marathon race. I've never got within 20 seconds of those times when training exclusively for 5ks. Probably doing something wrong with my 5k training but maybe text book 5k training doesn't suit me.

BeepBeep67

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

True but there are sometimes exceptions. My 2 fastest 5ks both came within a month after my target marathon race. I've never got within 20 seconds of those times when training exclusively for 5ks. Probably doing something wrong with my 5k training but maybe text book 5k training doesn't suit me.

+1 the emphasis on the importance of endurance training is sometimes lost in 5k and MD training - I ran my fastest mile time last year off the back of HM training and later in the year ran an M40 PB for 5k just after the National Half.

menoscemo

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

True but there are sometimes exceptions. My 2 fastest 5ks both came within a month after my target marathon race. I've never got within 20 seconds of those times when training exclusively for 5ks. Probably doing something wrong with my 5k training but maybe text book 5k training doesn't suit me.

Yeah I'm the same. I put in 2 months of 5k training last spring and ran 19:28. I then trained for Berlin Marathon for 3 weeks and ran 19:12 in your 5k a few weeks after.
I really don't believe that optimum 5k or Marathon training programmes are really all that different (for me anyway). High mileage is still required.

Oh and 0407- Mcmillan predicts 3:07 mara for a 19:12 5k which I believe is about right. It predicts 3:04 for Jackybacks best 5k and he ran just a minute slower.

Pisco Sour

menoscemo wrote: »

Oh and 0407- Mcmillan predicts 3:07 mara for a 19:12 5k which I believe is about right. It predicts 3:04 for Jackybacks best 5k and he ran just a minute slower.

A 3:07 is considerably better than a 19:12.

This is just self fulfilling prophecy IMHO.

EDIT: Just checked McMillan. He suggests a 20.00 second 200m runner can run 400m in a staggering 41.8 seconds :eek: Credibility thrown well and truly out the window.

Krusty_Clown

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

+1 the emphasis on the importance of endurance training is sometimes lost in 5k and MD training - I ran my fastest mile time last year off the back of HM training and later in the year ran an M40 PB for 5k just after the National Half.

Anyone following a marathon (or half marathon) plan, tends to be clocking up significant mileage; far more training than they would be doing if following a dedicated 5k or mile plan (I'm talking joe soap here, not Alistair Cragg). So, I wonder are these MD performance increases down to a heavier training load, rather than the style of plan being followed? Are generic middle-distance plans for average runners just a little light on the mileage front?

0405 wrote:

Just checked McMillan. He suggests a 20.00 second 200m runner can run 400m in a staggering 41.8 seconds Credibility thrown well and truly out the window.

McMillan uses some formulas to establish the relationship between distances. It doesn't always work, particularly at the shorter distances. Worth remembering, that MacMillan is not a cast iron ruling that 'this is how fast you will run'. It is simply a tool, aimed at providing assistance in terms of target paces for specific distances, that also supplies sample equivalent times. If you scratch deep enough you'll find flaws in the IAAF tables too (they're based on historic records, so require constant rectification).

Also worth remembering, that if it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it wrong (credibility isn't thrown out the window), it merely means that it doesn't work for you and you shouldn't use it. You don't get to be the arbiter of all that is right and wrong. You just get to voice your opinion.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Anyone following a marathon (or half marathon) plan, tends to be clocking up significant mileage; far more training than they would be doing if following a dedicated 5k or mile plan (I'm talking joe soap here, not Alistair Cragg). So, I wonder are these MD performance increases down to a heavier training load, rather than the style of plan being followed? Are generic middle-distance plans for average runners just a little light on the mileage front?


McMillan uses some formulas to establish the relationship between distances. It doesn't always work, particularly at the shorter distances. Worth remembering, that MacMillan is not a cast iron ruling that 'this is how fast you will run'. It is simply a tool, aimed at providing assistance in terms of target paces for specific distances, that also supplies sample equivalent times. If you scratch deep enough you'll find flaws in the IAAF tables too (they're based on historic records, so require constant rectification).

Also worth remembering, that if it doesn't work for you, that doesn't make it wrong (credibility isn't thrown out the window), it merely means that it doesn't work for you and you shouldn't use it. You don't get to be the arbiter of all that is right and wrong. You just get to voice your opinion.

I always wonder why he lists 100, 200, 400 and 800 on that site. The comparisons are so off the chart that they are irrelevant. Anybody with the slightest idea about the sport knows that they are completely stupid, not even remotely close, so why bother listing them.

Well I've said IMO a few times now. It is also my opinion that some people use McMillan as a self fullfilling prophecy, but whatever works for people in the end of the day is the most important thing I guess.

BeepBeep67

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Are generic middle-distance plans for average runners just a little light on the mileage front?

^ This +:

For anyone running > 16 mins for 5k I would suggest they'll get more long progression runs and tempos than hitting the track every week and doing 12 x 400 @ mile pace. Lap 3+4 in the mile is more about endurance than speed, same for the dodgy 4th k in a 5k.

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

Well I've said IMO a few times now. It is also my opinion that some people use McMillan as a self fullfilling prophecy, but whatever works for people in the end of the day is the most important thing I guess.

True, but when you say that something has no credibility, it's not really expressing your opinion, it's on the more absolute end of the scale. I agree with you though, it's very hard to predict performances across shorter distances, so if you can't get it right, you probably shouldn't try.

I would typically have used MacMillan as a starting point and tweaked my target as I go along, but at times my target has also come from discussion on these boards, e.g. sub 80 minute half marathon. Once you have the target, you train accordingly and if you train right you hit that time and hence the self-fulfilling nature of arbitrary targets. It doesn't mean you slow down, in the last three miles of a marathon if you're ahead of your goal, but at the same time, when all your training pmp mileage is based on a specific pace, you will be better served by sticking pretty close to it, rather than going faster or slower.

So self-fulfilling? Probably, but only because Macmillan (or IAAF, or a buddy, or a boards discussion) provides the target that you train for.