Advice/Questions/etc

kennyb3

Okay this prob wont win awards for the most organised post of the year, but just a bit of background.....

have really got into this running thing since xmas. previously played football 2/3 times a week before and went on few other jogs but am a relatively new runner.

had been running 23.30 and 24min 5k's comfortably enough and 22.00 to 22.30 when i really pushed myself. have read plenty of the threads on here and am amazed by some of the times and really couldnt figure out how i could get sub 20 let alone much below. yet im 25yo and of a decent fitness. however last nite i went out and ran a pb of 21:21 for the 5k and it really got me excited about the prospect of going sub 20mins. it is now a major goal.

I put down the time improvement to 2 things:

1. I m generally a very slow starter and usually run the first km in 5 mins which is shocking however last nite i did it in 4'14

2. I have done a few longer runs lately - 10km a few times and my longest ever of 14km which gave me the confidence i could keep going even when tired.

I feel i can achieve a sub 20 for the following reasons:

1. the run last nite was my first following 4 days eating and drinking(lightly) while on holidays in barcelona
2. the 5km course i do imo is quite difficult. the last km is all uphill
3. im prob carrying 6 to 8lb i could lose
4. my last 2km could prob have been improved. took 2nd last easy - 4'24(slowest) so id get the last one and last one i couldnt raise a sprint at the end.

now for my some questions that i would love some advice/feedback on:

1. I always assumed running longer distances would slow me down, i.e. turn me into a slower runner, but it appears not, how is this the case? just that you have extra stamina?

2. is there ant theories on running fast early and then trying to stay on at sameish pace or savinbg yourself for later or is it all personal choice?

3. has anybody any advice on how i can shave more time off my run? just run more? run more 1kms or 2kms at quicker speeds and then mix up with longer runs from time to time? wear less clothing? interested in everything that could help

4. As a relatively new runner how long can i expect my times to drop for and how low in time can i really go or is that totally dependant on how hard i train. like can i realistically get to 18mins

5. to what degree is there a level of 'talent' involved?

6. im only 5ft 8 and have a short stride and when i go running with my friend who is 6'2 he seems to find it easier to comfortably do a quicker pace. is this the case or am i just lazier? i note alot of the top class athlethes are short. i read on one of the threads about your stride naturally lenghtening as you run more and become more advanced. is this the case?

any other advice and comments are appreciated. just want to know how to improve, how far i can go etc. i am ultimately aiming to run the DCM but i wanna focus on my 5km (firstly) and 10km times to knock off 2 of the big 8 prior to building longer runs in and starting my full marathon training program.

Thanks in advance,

Brian

cfitz

Just run more.

You can probably go below 17 minutes for 5k within 2 years and possibly much faster after that if you put in the work.

kennyb3

cfitz wrote: »

Just run more.

You can probably go below 17 minutes for 5k within 2 years and possibly much faster after that if you put in the work.

Thanks. good to know its all about work. I can live with that ha ha

Woddle

Hi Kenny why don't you sign up for the paddys day 5k on the 15th of march. Its a very quick course and it will give you a better idea where your at. I just signed up for it and I'll be aiming under 20, the closer to 19:30 the better
This was my first race back into the running scene last year and I did it in 26:3?, one year on and I'm at 20:07, so put in the work and you'll see times going down. You could start on a 4 week plan for this race, ask some lads and gals what they recommend. Best of luck and if you register for it and are not part of a club, consider putting Boards AC as your club

kennyb3

Woddle wrote: »

Hi Kenny why don't you sign up for the paddys day 5k on the 15th of march. Its a very quick course and it will give you a better idea where your at. I just signed up for it and I'll be aiming under 20, the closer to 19:30 the better
This was my first race back into the running scene last year and I did it in 26:3?, one year on and I'm at 20:07, so put in the work and you'll see times going down. You could start on a 4 week plan for this race, ask some lads and gals what they recommend. Best of luck and if you register for it and are not part of a club, consider putting Boards AC as your club

thanks woddle, would love to do this race, but generally have football matches on sunday mornings. dont really want to give up either and football is a team sport so cant let down my teammates. hopefully not have a fixture that week but i wont know till a lot closer.

have to keep my races to saturdays and then when there is no football in the summer.

i ll defo put boards ac down as my team from now on!!

Racing Flat

kennyb3 wrote: »

2. is there ant theories on running fast early and then trying to stay on at sameish pace or savinbg yourself for later or is it all personal choice?

In relation to this, the conventioanl wisdom is to run even, or negative splits (slower first half, faster second half). However, I posted this a while back, unfortunately don't know where it came from, but it suggests positive splits (going faster at the start) may in fact be a good strategy. For full thread see here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055323175&highlight=positive+splits


The surest way to blow a 5-K is to start too fast. But just how fast is too fast?

Researchers from the University of New Hampshire examined the effect of different pacing strategies on 5-K performance. Their subjects were 11 female runners from the school's cross-country team, who trained an average of 35 miles per week and had 5-K PRs ranging from 18 to 21 minutes. After running two 5-K time trials to establish a baseline pace, the subjects then completed three more 5-Ks using decidedly different pacing strategies: The subjects ran the first mile of each race either equal to, three percent faster, or six percent faster than their established baseline pace per mile. After the first mile, the subjects could change their pace to finish as quickly as possible.

The results surprised everyone familiar with the go-out-easy approach. Eight of the 11 women ran their best 5-K times (averaging 20:39) when they ran the first mile six percent faster than their baseline pace. The other three subjects posted their best times (20:52) going out three percent faster than baseline pace. The even-paced runners produced the slowest times, averaging 21:11. The faster-starting women did slow down more during the race, but the even-paced runners simply couldn't make up the time lost in a slower start.

So how is it that these runners achieved their best times by logging their first mile a seemingly suicidal 26 seconds faster than their predicted 5-K pace? According to the study, at the end of the first mile, the even-paced runners were at only 78 percent of their VO2 max, an effort level more akin to a tempo run than a 5-K race--below their potential. The three-percent and six-percent faster starts put the subjects at 82 and 83 percent of VO2 max after the first mile, which is closer to the intensity you'd expect from an experienced runner racing the first mile of a 5-K.

So should we all go out as fast as possible in every race? Not exactly. Moderately trained runners may benefit from a faster start because they're probably not starting fast enough in the first place. The researchers suggest that their study findings are probably most applicable to competitive open and master's division runners, not elites who already know how best to push themselves right from the gun or beginners who totally lack a sense of pacing. And even competitive runners shouldn't try the go-out-fast strategy in longer races, when other variables become more important than first-mile pace--like, say, finishing another 25.2 miles.

Woddle

I reckon if I gave that a bash I would be in tatters at the half way mark. I will be looking at 19:40 in the msb 5k which would be 6:20 pace, 6% quicker would have me hitting mile 1 at faster than 6 min pace :eek:

kennyb3

Racing Flat wrote: »

In relation to this, the conventioanl wisdom is to run even, or negative splits (slower first half, faster second half). However, I posted this a while back, unfortunately don't know where it came from, but it suggests positive splits (going faster at the start) may in fact be a good strategy. For full thread see here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055323175&highlight=positive+splits


The surest way to blow a 5-K is to start too fast. But just how fast is too fast?

Researchers from the University of New Hampshire examined the effect of different pacing strategies on 5-K performance. Their subjects were 11 female runners from the school's cross-country team, who trained an average of 35 miles per week and had 5-K PRs ranging from 18 to 21 minutes. After running two 5-K time trials to establish a baseline pace, the subjects then completed three more 5-Ks using decidedly different pacing strategies: The subjects ran the first mile of each race either equal to, three percent faster, or six percent faster than their established baseline pace per mile. After the first mile, the subjects could change their pace to finish as quickly as possible.

The results surprised everyone familiar with the go-out-easy approach. Eight of the 11 women ran their best 5-K times (averaging 20:39) when they ran the first mile six percent faster than their baseline pace. The other three subjects posted their best times (20:52) going out three percent faster than baseline pace. The even-paced runners produced the slowest times, averaging 21:11. The faster-starting women did slow down more during the race, but the even-paced runners simply couldn't make up the time lost in a slower start.

So how is it that these runners achieved their best times by logging their first mile a seemingly suicidal 26 seconds faster than their predicted 5-K pace? According to the study, at the end of the first mile, the even-paced runners were at only 78 percent of their VO2 max, an effort level more akin to a tempo run than a 5-K race--below their potential. The three-percent and six-percent faster starts put the subjects at 82 and 83 percent of VO2 max after the first mile, which is closer to the intensity you'd expect from an experienced runner racing the first mile of a 5-K.

So should we all go out as fast as possible in every race? Not exactly. Moderately trained runners may benefit from a faster start because they're probably not starting fast enough in the first place. The researchers suggest that their study findings are probably most applicable to competitive open and master's division runners, not elites who already know how best to push themselves right from the gun or beginners who totally lack a sense of pacing. And even competitive runners shouldn't try the go-out-fast strategy in longer races, when other variables become more important than first-mile pace--like, say, finishing another 25.2 miles.

i guess this will work better for me as im in that beginner category. i clearly havent been pushing myself early. actually dying to get to saturday and try run even faster early. think my times were relatively consistent

4'14, 4'07, 4'13, 4'24, and 4'16 or something close to them

Racing Flat

Woddle wrote: »

I reckon if I gave that a bash I would be in tatters at the half way mark. I will be looking at 19:40 in the msb 5k which would be 6:20 pace, 6% quicker would have me hitting mile 1 at faster than 6 min pace :eek:

I wonder though would your ability to maintain 6.20 pace be much different if you do your first mile in 6.00 or 6.20? I'm sure there's probably a fine line, whereby if you did the first mile at 5.40 you might drop to 7.00 for miles 2 and 3, but perhaps at 6.00 you'd be able to hang on to 6.20s? Neverheless I'd advise 6.20 for mile 1....:)

I think if you look at any marathon results, look around 3.00 mark and those around 2.58, 2.59 will tend to be quite even or slightly positive or negative split (89/90, or 90/89), while those around 3.01 are often quite strongly positive split (86/95 type of thing)...

Peckham

Racing Flat wrote: »

I think if you look at any marathon results, look around 3.00 mark and those around 2.58, 2.59 will tend to be quite even or slightly positive or negative split (89/90, or 90/89), while those around 3.01 are often quite strongly positive split (86/95 type of thing)...

Or those who do 3.00 exactly - I was 88/92 splits in DCM08!

RoyMcC

kennyb3 wrote: »

wear less clothing?

Yup, try that

kennyb3

RoyMcC wrote: »

Yup, try that

ha ha i dont mean naked. but last nite i only wore one tshirt and a wind breaker and wore shorts. with previous cold weather had 2 t shirts, both heavier too and often wore track suit bottoms

mrak

To knock chunks off your 5k is simple: 1) build up patiently 2) run 40min-1hr every day, mostly at a comfortable pace 3) have a 2hr run once a week 3) do one or two runs a week with stretches (1-10mins) about your target 5k or 10k pace 4) run a race every month.

Long runs don't slow you down - they make you lighter and more efficient and eventually have your friends calling you lollipop-head.

The above will work until you get below about 17 or 16mins - after that it'll be down to talent and more complicated training plans.