PMP Workouts and Pace

aero2k · 06-05-2010 03:51PM

DustyBin wrote: »

Wow, like a machine!

You said earlier aero2k that you were constantly checking your garmin for pace feedback. It obviously worked because the proofs in the splits up above. Question is do you reckon that it might have burnt up restless/needless energy on you?
Reason being that I tend to constantly run by my watch when racing or running to a target pace in training, and am just worried that the constant checking of speed and adjusting of pace might use up energy that over the course of a marathon I cant afford to be wasting. What do you think?

The interesting thing is I ran DCM '08 with only a normal stopwatch, and paced it pretty well up until everything unravelled. I struggle with pacing on training runs, and find it easier in races.
For that particular race, i.e. DCM '09, I didn't find it wasted energy, because out of all the times I glanced at the watch, there was only one occasion where I needed to speed up (slightly) and lots of occasions where I needed to ease back. I was running with a group for a few miles through the park (approx miles 6-9) and felt very comfortable, and I would have been tempted to stay with them when the pace picked up around Chapelizod, however the watch said "no, too fast" and thankfully I eased off. One of that group ran 2:54 which would have been way out of my league and probably led to disaster.
I reckon if you're using a Garmin, the more frequently you check the pace the less energy you waste, as you won't be too far off. You might use more mental energy, which might in itself be a good thing as it distracts you from the pain in your legs!:)

aero2k · 26-05-2010 02:31PM

Hello all,

I meant to post again on this thread, but didn't want to tempt fate so close to Edinburgh. I've been thinking a bit about conservative versus agressive pacing strategies., or more accurately, strategies which are low risk/potentially high reward.
Now, I know some of you are doing Cork, so I'm not suggesting any last minute changes to training or taper. However, it might be worth considering the following experiment.

A flat course, no wind, cool day. Our lab rat runner (let's call him Haile) is relatively inexperienced, but he has followed a good programme consistently and he has faith in it. He has set a realistic goal which requires him to average X:52 per mile. He is injury and illness free, and his pre and during race hydration and fuelling strategies work to plan. Now, consider the following three possibilities:

1. Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at exactly X:52. He gets to 20 miles bang on schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:52 for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

2. Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at X:49. He gets to 20 miles 60 secs ahead of schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:52+10 sec per mile for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

3.Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at X:55. He gets to 20 miles 60 secs behind schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:42 for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

aero2k puts a gun to your head and forces you to bet on one of these scenarios having a successful outcome for Haile. If you're wrong, he will shoot you straight through the head. (jaysus aero, what is it with the murderous thoughts lately?)

Which one would you choose?

tisnotover · 26-05-2010 04:21PM

Option B*

* May fluctuate between A, B and C during taper-time

Peckham · 26-05-2010 04:23PM

I'll take the bait....

Definitely not option 3. He has left himself with far too much work to do, at a much faster pace than he'll probably be able to handle (assuming his race fitness has been accurately "calculated" to X:52/mile and training based around this pace). Stepping up the pace to 10 secs per mile faster than your marathon pace is far too much to ask in the final 6.2 miles....unless he has been too conservative in setting the X:52 pace, which the scenario above suggests is not the case.

Between the others, I'd come down on the side of option 1...the risk potential in hitting the wall in the final 6.2 miles is too large in option 2 (after all, he's an inexperienced marathon runner and fatigue is creeping up on him). If he was following option 2 I'd predict a gradual unwinding of the pace and him coming home a few minutes behind target.

That said, it's not that black and white. Am assuming all other factors are neutral - weather, course profile, fuelling etc.

Krusty_Clown · 26-05-2010 04:36PM

Option 1. But he has trained well, and instead of feeling fatigued, picks up the pace after 20 miles, passes 300 runners, collects first prize, all the babes, and lives happy ever after.

Sosa · 26-05-2010 09:49PM

I will have to try dodge that bullet Aero as i dont see haile ( myself ) churning out 20m at the same pace,i can see a slow first 5,then a gradual pick up to get to 20 on schedule and then the fun starts and we see whats in the tank !

aero2k · 27-05-2010 09:07AM

Cheers all,

I think I'm still in post Edinburgh oxygen deprived mode - I was hoping to have a bit of fun without upsetting the mental side of anyones' taper.
I was trying to make a serious point though about risk management. From personal experience over the last few years and a bit of recent reading, the majority of people don't understand how to use risk to their own benefit. As a rough example there was a big scare about H1N1, yet many people die of ordinary flu every year and it never hits the headlines. Another one: most of us probably percieve stock market traders as high-rolling gamblers, but the successful ones are actually extremely cautious, and are unwilling to place more than 1% of their capital at risk on any one trade.

Back to our little experiment. Imagine you are Haile, and a few weeks before the race you foolishly let slip your secret goal to aero2k over a pint. You know he is waiting at the finish line with a medal in one hand and a wet fish in the other - achieving the goal gets the medal, failing brings a slap across the head with a wet fish. Which is the lowest risk strategy?

I'll rule out 3 as it's too much quicker than he's done in training, assuming his PMP miles were at his average goal pace. 2 would be very good, if you could guarantee that nothing would go wrong in the last 6 miles - e.g. a lace coming undone (near the start of a 5 mile race this costs 12 sec plus the loss in momentum - don't ask me why I know that!:)), a spectator strolling across in front of you (happened twice in the last 6 in Edinburgh) etc etc. None of these things cost a lot of time, but you wouldn't have a lot of time left to make it up, and crucially that would require an increase in speed when you're tired. In otherwords, by seemingly being cautious and choosing the x:52 pace all the way, Haile is leaving no margin of safety.

My personal experience is that pinning on a race number is worth a few secs per mile - for DCM '09 and Edinburgh I huffed and puffed through my PMP training sessions (most done any day was 8 PMP miles at the end of a long run) and yet when the day came round I found running slightly quicker than PMP pace to be surprisingly comfortable. I know everyone fears the big blow-up after 20 but I reckon you're safe enough as long as you've made up that one minute cushion at a rate of 3 secs per mile - run 3 miles at 20 sec below PMP and it's only a question of when, not if, it all goes pear-shaped.

tisnotover wrote: »

Option B*

* May fluctuate between A, B and C during taper-time

I think I managed to try all 3 at various stages during Edinburgh (aero2k makes note to self to be more precise about goals!)

Peckham wrote: »

I'll take the bait....

Definitely not option 3. He has left himself with far too much work to do, at a much faster pace than he'll probably be able to handle (assuming his race fitness has been accurately "calculated" to X:52/mile and training based around this pace). Stepping up the pace to 10 secs per mile faster than your marathon pace is far too much to ask in the final 6.2 miles....unless he has been too conservative in setting the X:52 pace, which the scenario above suggests is not the case.
.....
That said, it's not that black and white. Am assuming all other factors are neutral - weather, course profile, fuelling etc.

Yeah, I reckon Krusty had it right about training for a slightly faster pace than you need to get your goal.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Option 1. But he has trained well, and instead of feeling fatigued, picks up the pace after 20 miles, passes 300 runners, collects first prize, all the babes, and lives happy ever after.

I like this one, but I can't get round the lack of fatigue!

Sosa wrote: »

I will have to try dodge that bullet Aero as i dont see haile ( myself ) churning out 20m at the same pace,i can see a slow first 5,then a gradual pick up to get to 20 on schedule and then the fun starts and we see whats in the tank !

Yeah, for simplicity I left out the start. In Dublin familiarity with the course helped me design a slow start (I didn't use it on the day as I felt fine at PMP from the start), and I knew I could take it handy in Edinburgh due to the downhill first 4 miles.

tisnotover · 27-05-2010 09:25AM

Thanks aero2k...good stuff....food for thought as always !

If I end up at the 20mile mark, thinking about you and that wet fish...I'll come after ya with one !?!

T runner · 27-05-2010 12:49PM

aero2k wrote: »

Hello all,

I meant to post again on this thread, but didn't want to tempt fate so close to Edinburgh. I've been thinking a bit about conservative versus agressive pacing strategies., or more accurately, strategies which are low risk/potentially high reward.
Now, I know some of you are doing Cork, so I'm not suggesting any last minute changes to training or taper. However, it might be worth considering the following experiment.

A flat course, no wind, cool day. Our lab rat runner (let's call him Haile) is relatively inexperienced, but he has followed a good programme consistently and he has faith in it. He has set a realistic goal which requires him to average X:52 per mile. He is injury and illness free, and his pre and during race hydration and fuelling strategies work to plan. Now, consider the following three possibilities:

1. Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at exactly X:52. He gets to 20 miles bang on schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:52 for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

2. Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at X:49. He gets to 20 miles 60 secs ahead of schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:52+10 sec per mile for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

3.Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at X:55. He gets to 20 miles 60 secs behind schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:42 for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

aero2k puts a gun to your head and forces you to bet on one of these scenarios having a successful outcome for Haile. If you're wrong, he will shoot you straight through the head. (jaysus aero, what is it with the murderous thoughts lately?)

Which one would you choose?

Another problem!

Garmins always measure a marathon as atleast 26.5 miles.

So a theoretical mile pace of X.52 for 26.2 miles may find you at your predicted time, running at your predicted pace with .3 miles still left to run.

EG a predicted marathon pace for an exact 26.2 marathon in 2.40 is 3.48 per k.
The average pace your garmin needs to record to achieve this about 3.45 per k and this is the PMP pace you should train at on your garmin. (if using PMP)

tisnotover · 27-05-2010 02:23PM

T runner wrote: »

Another problem!

Garmins always measure a marathon as atleast 26.5 miles.

So a theoretical mile pace of X.52 for 26.2 miles may find you at your predicted time, running at your predicted pace with .3 miles still left to run.

EG a predicted marathon pace for an exact 26.2 marathon in 2.40 is 3.48 per k.
The average pace your garmin needs to record to achieve this about 3.45 per k and this is the PMP pace you should train at on your garmin. (if using PMP)

As a backup to the garmin i'd plan on having mile splits printed out for a goal time? I'd trust the garmin only for current mile/lap pace ?

TFBubendorfer · 27-05-2010 02:52PM

tisnotover wrote: »

As a backup to the garmin i'd plan on having mile splits printed out for a goal time? I'd trust the garmin only for current mile/lap pace ?

My personal experience is that you better run 4 secs per mile faster than what the Garmin says. If you want to break 3 hours in the marathon, your Garmin needs to show 6:48 pace or faster.

Gringo78 · 27-05-2010 02:56PM

aero2k wrote: »

run 3 miles at 20 sec below PMP and it's only a question of when, not if, it all goes pear-shaped.

Yeah....and something I think is the undoing of many runners is being afraid to back off enough on the hills....some hills will require a drop of pace 30-60sec per mile. Now if you only drop the pace back 10sec per mile, will thats the equivalent of running 20sec too fast on the flat and could be as much as 50sec per mile.

Its plain as day on the flat - if your PMP is 6:50 and you run 6:00, you're in trouble. Yet tell a person that only dropping their pace back to 7:10 up a half mile of hill is not enough and they should drop back to 7:40 and they'll be reluctant to belive you. Its as detrimental though as running 6:15 on the flat instead of 6:50.

You can make back lost time - you cannot make back lost glycogen (well you can, but you know what I mean).

Krusty_Clown · 27-05-2010 03:23PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

My personal experience is that you better run 4 secs per mile faster than what the Garmin says. If you want to break 3 hours in the marathon, your Garmin needs to show 6:48 pace or faster.

That's exactly right. But it kind of combines with Aero2k's point above, that if your pmp training on the Garmin is at 6:52 (which we know to be too slow to achieve sub 3), on the day, because of taper/putting on the number/atmosphere/race conditions etc you can run that little bit quicker than the PMP pace you trained to, but yes, it would absolutely have to be a few seconds faster on the watch.

All my PB marathons to date (where I wasn't pacing) have been run faster than my PMP training runs. Not planned, just kind of fell into it on the day, but the actual time targets have been right on the nose.

Gringo78 · 27-05-2010 03:33PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

My personal experience is that you better run 4 secs per mile faster than what the Garmin says. If you want to break 3 hours in the marathon, your Garmin needs to show 6:48 pace or faster.

What you aiming for in cork TFB?

TFBubendorfer · 27-05-2010 03:57PM

Gringo78 wrote: »

What you aiming for in cork TFB?

Still no idea. I spent the last few weeks recovering from Connemara rather than training properly. Then again, I did the same 2 years ago and was rewarded with a (then) PB of 3:09.

I think I'll head out at 7:00 pace and see how it goes. I don't think sub-3 is realistic, but a new PB may be on as long as my legs hold out for 26 miles (which may be delusional).

Thought #1: I don't want to get caught by the 3:15 pacers.
Thought #2: If I get caught by the 3:30 group I'll stop marathon running and start collecting stamps instead.

Gringo78 · 27-05-2010 04:02PM

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Thought #2: If I get caught by the 3:30 group I'll stop marathon running and start collecting stamps instead.

If you get caught by the 3:30 pacers, best to just pretend you're one of them.

Well done on the sprint tri - hope to do my first in September and like you, tis the swim will be my achilles.

asimonov · 27-05-2010 04:03PM

if its not too late to contribute to aero's orginal question.

I had initially thought option 1, but in retrospect - its cutting it too fine. You need to factor in some allowance for toilets / open laces etc and getting to 20 miles bang on target is just too tight.

Option 3 is out, as in general i don't think its reasonable to expect someone to pick the pace up by 15 seconds per mile or so at 20 miles

So option 2 is the one - arrive at mile 20 just a bit ahead of target and then maintain the pace from there!

From my own experience, I used a pace wrist band that was 1 min ahead of my target pace - the difference per mile was minuscule ( and per km less than minuscule) but it should help to avoid coming in at 3:00:15 or something like that. I ended up coming in one second ahead of my pace band.

I also think that belief in your own ability has a large part to play, at some stage you have to reassure yourself that you can do it..."i can and i am" or something like it is a good mantra to have. The other thing that helped was to have a set of mini-goals. Some of these were intermediate time goals, like 13.1 miles slower or equal to 1:29:30, but others were just to drink water from every station, to do 4 high 5's with spectators, to remember that everyone feels good at 18 miles - anything that will take your mind from running sub 6:52 miles

Gringo78 · 27-05-2010 04:07PM

Back on topic - i actually think both Haile A & B will hit the target but maybe a more interesting gun to the head bet would be which one crosses the line first?

I think Runner B would be slowing down towards the end while the seconds he has in the bank whittle away and he'll just barely make it across the line to hit the target time - he's got negative thoughts in his head thnking I'm going to slow down but its ok cos I have time in the bank - but its not ok, because he's allowing his body to slow down, thus losing the mental battle.

Runner A, with no time in the bank will keep on pace, get to one mile to go and say f**kit, job done, still feeling ok, lets empty the tank, finishes 15sec ahead of target.

tisnotover · 27-05-2010 04:25PM

Ok Gringo...I'll let you take option B

asimonov · 27-05-2010 04:26PM

Gringo78 wrote: »

Runner A, with no time in the bank will keep on pace, get to one mile to go and say f**kit, job done, still feeling ok, lets empty the tank, finishes 15sec ahead of target.

Especially true if runner A knows runner B is wrecked and coming back to him ..anyway enough of the theory..so who's gonna be runner A & B cork?????:D

tisnotover · 27-05-2010 04:28PM

asimonov wrote: »

Especially true if runner A knows runner B is wrecked and coming back to him ..anyway enough of the theory..so who's gonna be runner A & B cork?????:D

I've a club-mate who is doing Option D, getting to 20miles in 2:15, and expecting to fade...

Must do some maths on when I expect to see him come back to me!

Gringo78 · 27-05-2010 04:52PM

tisnotover wrote: »

I've a club-mate who is doing Option D, getting to 20miles in 2:15, and expecting to fade...

Must do some maths on when I expect to see him come back to me!

Would McMillan suggest he's borderline Sub 3 material? What has been his PMP in training?

Its actually ok to think you might 'fade' by a few seconds a mile, but less than 2min in the bank is not going to help you if you hit the wall and if you thought there was a chance you'd hit the wall then increasing your pace over the first 20 miles will only make you more likely to hit the wall.

I think a sensible tactic is to go out at a pace you are fairly sure you will not hit the wall at, and then when muscle fatigue etc starts to hit at 20 miles you need to HTFU and run through it. If you do in fact hit the wall and collapse, well, running faster to begin with would hardly have helped?

Fatigue & muscle pains, cramps etc will slow you, but hitting the wall will stop you.

I think its prudent to put 30sec in the bank to cover small mishaps, but if you think its going to give you a nice big cushion so that you slow down and stroll your way through the last 6 miles, you're very misguided.

T runner · 27-05-2010 05:21PM

aero2k wrote: »

Hello all,

I meant to post again on this thread, but didn't want to tempt fate so close to Edinburgh. I've been thinking a bit about conservative versus agressive pacing strategies., or more accurately, strategies which are low risk/potentially high reward.
Now, I know some of you are doing Cork, so I'm not suggesting any last minute changes to training or taper. However, it might be worth considering the following experiment.

A flat course, no wind, cool day. Our lab rat runner (let's call him Haile) is relatively inexperienced, but he has followed a good programme consistently and he has faith in it. He has set a realistic goal which requires him to average X:52 per mile. He is injury and illness free, and his pre and during race hydration and fuelling strategies work to plan. Now, consider the following three possibilities:

1. Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at exactly X:52. He gets to 20 miles bang on schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:52 for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

2. Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at X:49. He gets to 20 miles 60 secs ahead of schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:52+10 sec per mile for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

3.Haile uses his Garmin or internal metronome to churn out the miles at X:55. He gets to 20 miles 60 secs behind schedule, and though fatigue is gradually building up he is feeling comfortable. He now needs to average X:42 for the last 6.2 miles to achieve his goal.

aero2k puts a gun to your head and forces you to bet on one of these scenarios having a successful outcome for Haile. If you're wrong, he will shoot you straight through the head. (jaysus aero, what is it with the murderous thoughts lately?)

Which one would you choose?

For the majority of runners i would say option B. Looking at splits in marathon races the majority of runners fade in the last 6 miles. They are using a higher proportion of FAT for energy and simple cant run as economically (I read somewhere).

Some of the pace calculators actually allow you to input a fade factor.

T runner · 27-05-2010 05:24PM

tisnotover wrote: »

As a backup to the garmin i'd plan on having mile splits printed out for a goal time? I'd trust the garmin only for current mile/lap pace ?

PMP pace should be faster in your training sessons than what your Garmin says.

Im hoping to go sub 2.40 in Berlin, (long hope). I will train at PMP of 3.44 on my Garmin to achieve this not 3.48 per k. Will stick to mile visual markers on the day for pacing.

aero2k · 27-05-2010 06:57PM

The points above about Garmin time vs real time are well made, for me it has varied from 2-4 secs per mile too slow.

asimonov wrote: »

if its not too late to contribute to aero's orginal question.

So option 2 is the one - arrive at mile 20 just a bit ahead of target and then maintain the pace from there!

From my own experience, I used a pace wrist band that was 1 min ahead of my target pace - the difference per mile was minuscule ( and per km less than minuscule) but it should help to avoid coming in at 3:00:15 or something like that. I ended up coming in one second ahead of my pace band.

I also think that belief in your own ability has a large part to play... The other thing that helped was to have a set of mini-goals. Some of these were intermediate time goals, like 13.1 miles slower or equal to 1:29:30, but others were just to drink water from every station, to do 4 high 5's with spectators, to remember that everyone feels good at 18 miles - anything that will take your mind from running sub 6:52 miles

Yes, the mental part is important, and enjoying the event is a big help too. I probably lost a second or two moving over to the left side of the road to touch the outstretched hand of a little girl who was being held by her mother - but I probably got 4 seconds back from the smile on her face.

Gringo78 wrote: »

Back on topic - i actually think both Haile A & B will hit the target but maybe a more interesting gun to the head bet would be which one crosses the line first?

I think Runner B would be slowing down towards the end while the seconds he has in the bank whittle away and he'll just barely make it across the line to hit the target time - he's got negative thoughts in his head thinking I'm going to slow down but its ok cos I have time in the bank - but its not ok, because he's allowing his body to slow down, thus losing the mental battle.

Runner A, with no time in the bank will keep on pace, get to one mile to go and say f**kit, job done, still feeling ok, lets empty the tank, finishes 15sec ahead of target.

I think this depends on the person, and how you set yourself up on the day. In DCM '09 I had no thoughts of slowing down, every 6:49 mile was taken as further proof that I could run miles at that pace, and in fact mile 23 was my fastest apart from the downhill bit in the park.
In contrast I messed up in Edinburgh by not forcing the pace slightly around miles 7-10. I was only a few seconds too slow, maybe 6:32 or 6:33 vs the 6:30 I needed to go sub 2:50 (in fact 6:31 might have done as I'd "banked" 30 seconds from the downhill start), but the little voice in my head started: "it's going to be hot later, it's too early yet etc etc". I think the gradual slowdown over the last few miles had a lot to do with knowing that while I couldn't beat 2:50, 7:15 miles would get me sub 2:55. I don't know if not taking the last gel was a factor, but I don't think I was as physically tired last Sunday over the final few miles as I was in DCM, despite the faster time.
More to file away under lessons learned and a bit more (subjective) analysis to be done as part of my technical race report which I'll save until after Cork.

(don't want the lads to start thinking "aero regularly did midnight fast sessions during taper week, drank the blood of live cows, and slept hanging upside down like a bat, and got a PB in Edinburgh - think I'll try all that over the next 10 days!)

tisnotover · 27-05-2010 11:03PM

Gringo78 wrote: »

Would McMillan suggest he's borderline Sub 3 material? What has been his PMP in training?

It puts him at about 10seconds over the 3hr mark based on his latest half time...so def borderline....His PMP runs have been run with me like so he would have ran 6:55 pace for the half marathon we did at PMP.

Everyone has a different approach...it'll all come out in the wash !

tisnotover · 09-06-2010 12:54PM

tisnotover wrote: »

Something i've been thinking about lately...

Hoping to do 1st marathon in Cork this year. At moment, McMillan would say i'm on for a 2:58 marathon based on my 10mile time, thats say 6:48min/mile pace, ridiculous:

Reality check its Cork (heat!), its your first marathon, so maybe with right training, actual PMP will be 7:15min/mile for close to 3:10, I don't even want to think about sub-3, maybe some other time!

Question:
Should you train at the 7:15min/mile pace, or faster for PMP workouts. I'm thinking of training for about 6:48/6:50 pace as that is where I'm at relative to the tempo/interval workouts I do, but again on marathon day, to drop back to 7:15 pace???

That was the very first post in this thread. :rolleyes:

The bit about "McMillan saying 2:58 marathon and 6:48min/mile" is very interesting...as thats exactly what av-pace I went through 26.2 miles in last Monday.

As has been pointed out by a good few of ye here, garmin measured 26.45 miles for the Cork marathon course, av-pace just inside 6:52min/mile.

Conclusion: If you have a specific time in mind for the marathon, the av-pace needed will be 4/5 seconds faster than that in the race itself.

I hit the following PMP runs in training (a separate run from long run over hills):

5miles at av-pace 6:58
6miles at av-pace 6:57
3*3miles at av-pace: 7:03
11miles at av-pace: 6:55
4*3miles at av-pace: 6:44
8.8miles at av-pace: 6:56
2*4mile + 1*2mile at av-pace: 6:54
13.1miles at av-pace: 6:55
10.0miles at av-pace: 6:52
2.0miles at av-pace: 6:49

Each run was a progression from previous run. Each run was dictated by keeping HR in a range (160-165).

Looking at it now, you can see that the av-pace was only once below 6:48min/mile. But, you have to take into account the other runs in training that week and how your legs are. There was an interval session usually 2days before this run and a long run two days after. That is why running by HR is key I think. Believe me, your body is tired setting out for these runs some days, whether it be from training, or work or whatever!

The runs did feel easier towards the end, the avhr for same-pace was getting lower. It also helped to run in a group. Some times there was a group of 4 of us hitting these runs.

The advice in this thread by Tergat and others still holds. Use McMillan to work out what your CURRENT PMP PACE is, off a RECENT race, and train at that or as I found better by what your HR would tell ya.

This is what worked for me, hopefully it'll be of use to some more of ye.

aero2k · 09-06-2010 12:58PM

tisnotover wrote: »

Everyone has a different approach...it'll all come out in the wash !

I think it literally did all come out in the wash last Monday, thankfully in a good way for yourself, Gringo and Sosa.

PMP Workouts and Pace

Comments