Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Running in the Real World

1101113151666

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭laura_ac3


    The instructions from clealier as far as I can remember was the tempo is the pace you could roughly hold for an hour. The marathon effort session then was more like a half marathon pace then or something you could hold for 2 hours. As already said, he did mention that tempo was something that has different definitions depending. If you were training by HR and the bands it would be easier - as it would if you recorded in miles....make the switch....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,044 ✭✭✭chickey2


    laura_ac3 wrote: »
    The instructions from clealier as far as I can remember was the tempo is the pace you could roughly hold for an hour. The marathon effort session then was more like a half marathon pace then or something you could hold for 2 hours. As already said, he did mention that tempo was something that has different definitions depending If you were training by HR and the bands it would be easier - as it would if you recorded in miles....make the switch....

    Don't listen to the metrically challenged Anna! ;-)

    I measure my tempo runs by heart rate, 82-88% of my Max heart rate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭aquinn


    chickey2 wrote:
    Don't listen to the metrically challenged Anna! ;-)


    Stop that now. We only deal in miles. Anna half there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭belcarra


    adrian522 wrote: »
    Tempo runs are one of the great misunderstood workouts of our sport. In his seminal book, Daniels' Running Formula, ubercoach Jack Daniels writes that "the intensity of effort associated with [tempo] running is comfortably hard. [Y]our effort should be one that you could maintain for about an hour in a race." This is what tempo is not: a time trial. To be on the safe side, when preparing for the 5K we should tempo train at an effort approximately equal to half marathon race pace.

    This is the problem statement. This results in being a bit of a blanket statement by presuming the pace/ability of the athlete.
    Simply ignore this statement and go with the 'effort should be one that you could maintain for about an hour in a race' element of it (as per Murph - He knows his stuff!!;)).

    With this Anna's 10k pace would have been just a tad quick (Anna 10k pace =5:20/km), so easing off by a few seconds would be a better suited pace imo. I would think that perhaps 5:25-5:30/km would be an ideal tempo pace range for A at the moment.
    Also, because of the type of run (LT) you'd be better off beginning at the slower range as once you go quicker than the Lactate Threshold you begin to lose the effectiveness of that type of run.

    Anyways, that's just my tuppence!!

    EDIT: Actually Anna, what is your HM pace? 2hr PB? 5:40/km?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Thanks everyone for the input on the tempo, and I will read that article that Adrian posted. I was going by McMillan (i know not perfect) and also for once I did listen to Murph :) ... my last 10k was 53 min so didn't think it was unreasonable to use that as tempo pace (i.e., could maintain for close to an hour).

    The pace was un-comfortably hard yesterday... I do think on a different day it might not have been.

    Belcarra's point about starting off at the slower end of the range is a good one, I almost always start too fast and have to work too hard to maintain it. Must remember that!

    My target HM pace is 5:35-40. PB HM pace last year was 5:45 (2h 1:37 I think).

    Anyway, after a good night's sleep (drugged the kids ;)), reflecting on yesterday's dreaded tempo, I think it's good experience and the pace wasn't bad considering.

    I suppose one of the advantages of training regularly and having sessions included is that some days they will feel a lot harder than others, and it gives you practice at various paces, in various states of mind!

    As Murph also says, trust the plan! :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    laura_ac3 wrote: »
    If you were training by HR and the bands it would be easier - as it would if you recorded in miles....make the switch....


    Miles and HR :eek::eek:
    chickey2 wrote: »
    Don't listen to the metrically challenged Anna! ;-)

    I measure my tempo runs by heart rate, 82-88% of my Max heart rate.

    So glad you are here Chickey!!
    aquinn wrote: »
    Stop that now. We only deal in miles. Anna half there.

    Only to keep you happy A!

    I can't help it, I still think in Km!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭Bungy Girl


    Anna, check out this calculator. It may be of use (or further fuel the debate!). Just enter your target half time and it'll throw up a tempo pace which looks to be approx half way between 10K and half marathon pace. If you're training for a shorter distance the tempo pace increases accordingly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭aquinn


    Bungy Girl wrote: »
    Anna, check out this calculator. It may be of use (or further fuel the debate!). Just enter your target half time and it'll throw up a tempo pace which looks to be approx half way between 10K and half marathon pace. If you're training for a shorter distance the tempo pace increases accordingly.

    Sorry to report but that is broken. I am not doing a 3.33 marathon and also just checked the 5 mile sub 35. Computer says no. BG OMFG if you work off this, fair play.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭Bungy Girl


    aquinn wrote: »
    I am not doing a 3.33 marathon.

    Not tomorrow maybe ;) but it shows your potential if you train specifically for a particular distance. Did you put in the K-Club time ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,272 ✭✭✭Dubgal72


    Just catching up here, you are flying Anna, looks like it's all coming together for you! Don't forget, you are on the 'constantly improving plane' at the moment so you might find it useful to review your paces every couple of months. I'd agree with giving yourself a range and where you slot into that range on a particular session is going to depend on *feel*...but of course I'm going to say that ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Bungy Girl wrote: »
    Anna, check out this calculator. It may be of use (or further fuel the debate!). Just enter your target half time and it'll throw up a tempo pace which looks to be approx half way between 10K and half marathon pace. If you're training for a shorter distance the tempo pace increases accordingly.

    Thanks BG, took a look, and actually the paces are pretty close to McMillan's... so I wasn't far off :)
    aquinn wrote: »
    Sorry to report but that is broken. I am not doing a 3.33 marathon and also just checked the 5 mile sub 35. Computer says no. BG OMFG if you work off this, fair play.

    haha, A, see above, you are in denial (AKA sandbagging :D). Although the list of training sessions did scare me... !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Dubgal72 wrote: »
    Just catching up here, you are flying Anna, looks like it's all coming together for you! Don't forget, you are on the 'constantly improving plane' at the moment so you might find it useful to review your paces every couple of months. I'd agree with giving yourself a range and where you slot into that range on a particular session is going to depend on *feel*...but of course I'm going to say that ;)

    Thanks DG, hope you're right about the constantly improving :cool:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭Bungy Girl


    annapr wrote: »
    Although the list of training sessions did scare me... !

    +1 to that :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Thursday, 7th May: Rest day (post-tempo exhaustion :))

    Friday, 8th May: 56 minutes easy
    5.78 mi @ 9:42; 9.3 km @ 6:02

    Got out ahead of the floods thankfully. Nice and easy to the wooden bridge and back. Did the 7th kilometer at HM pace, just because.

    Saturday 9th May: 110 minutes easy
    11.14 mi @ 10:00; 17.92 km @ 6:13

    Murph and the boys headed off to do marshalling duty at St. Anne's. I joined the ever energetic aquinn for this one, coaxing her out a bit earlier than natural for her. Marvelled at her enthusiasm for cycling, sailing, and all things sporty!

    Started out thinking it would be the usual 55 min easy, but we headed up the canal and it was so pleasant and chatty that it morphed into the 110 min LSR, to the m50 and back. Great to have this done on a Saturday! Even the weather cooperated. Didn't feel the time going but the oul' legs are feeling it now.

    Highlight on the way back was zipping past 3 young ones near Phibsborough, followed by laughter from us (smug) and them (morto ;)).

    We said hello to all runners, cyclists, dog walkers we passed in case any of them are on here... !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Sunday 10 May: 55 mins easy

    Revenge of the gamin… it’s trying to drive me mad. Did my usual seafront route, only to be told I had done a 4:00 min km and a 7 min mile… while I would love to think that’s my easy pace, I know the route well enough to know that the bloody garmin was just haywire. And checking it on Garmin connect, it has thrown in some weird detour into deepest Clontarf… but yet the total distance seems close enough.

    Anyhow, despite stats to the contrary, this was 55 mins (i think the time was accurate!) and 9.5k/5.9 mi. Average pace 5:48/k; 9:21/mi… i think.

    Felt really tired before heading out, was leaning towards going for a nap instead of a run… and still tired after it. Maybe it’s the increased mileage taking it out of me, not sure.

    WTD: 56 km/35 mi (give or take a Garmin hiccup) Happy with that! :)
    MTD: 85 km/53 mi
    YTD: 582 km/362 mi


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    So I realised, reflecting on the last couple of weeks (and I admit it, being a nerd and looking at the running app stats) that I am doing more mileage now than at the height of marathon training last year. The HH novice plan only had 1 40-mile week and 3 of the last 4 weeks for me have been higher than anything in that plan. I was relieved to see that... no wonder I'm bloody tired and aching legs!!! It's not just being old and creaky :D

    Looking forward to the Terenure 5 mile on Sunday... but not sure what to go for...
    Based on my Bundoran 10k of 53:25, McMillan estimates 42:39.
    If I use Jingle Bells 5k of 24:53 (which I think was an anomaly... at least until I get sub-25 somewhere else), then McMillan says 41:16.
    oh and my PB is 43:37 at race series 5 mile last year.

    I've been toying with the idea of following the 40 min pacers and hanging on for dear life/dropping back as necessary on the day. But maybe I should pace it better than that and aim for c.42 mins... go out at 5:12/km and maintain that. And look to take more time off at the Race Series 5 mile... some day I would like to get close to 40 mins, just not sure if it's this week.

    All ideas and advice welcome!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭Bungy Girl


    Are you tapering for this Anna, or just continuing on with the half plan ?

    FWIW I'd err on the side of caution, and get a guaranteed PB in the bag, by starting at 42:00 pace or thereabouts, seeing how you are at half way, and upping the pace slightly in the second half to finish strong.

    Starting at 40:00 pace is possibly a bit risky and might result in a painful experience :eek: Plenty of 5 milers to get that sub-40 soon enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭belcarra


    I'd suggest pacing it at 5:10/km * 8.05 = 41.35.
    5:10/km is easy to make calculations. Add a mini-sprint finish and you'd be sub 41:30.

    If you go with the 40min pacers then they will probably be targeting 39:30 in reality so that's even faster again! At least with the safer option you may have the option of speeding up at the end.

    What does Murph suggest?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    annapr wrote: »
    I've been toying with the idea of following the 40 min pacers and hanging on for dear life

    I like this idea in the shorter races. You'd be surprised how long you can hold pace/hang on.
    Sounds like me last year :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,386 ✭✭✭career move


    Bungy Girl wrote: »
    Are you tapering for this Anna, or just continuing on with the half plan ?

    FWIW I'd err on the side of caution, and get a guaranteed PB in the bag, by starting at 42:00 pace or thereabouts, seeing how you are at half way, and upping the pace slightly in the second half to finish strong.

    Starting at 40:00 pace is possibly a bit risky and might result in a painful experience :eek: Plenty of 5 milers to get that sub-40 soon enough.

    I like this strategy. The Jingle Bells is a very hard race to match across the board because it's so fast. You've definitely improved since then though and Bundoran was hilly I think but if you go into the red early on you'll suffer. And 5 miles is a long way when you're suffering. I've been there :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭Runchick


    Hey Anna regarding the tiredness, had the same thing last week so have slowed down the easy runs a tad, might be worth a similar strategy until you feel better rested. Best of luck on Sunday - agree with the conservative start approach - not very good at it myself but has always been the best outcome when I've managed to do it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Bungy Girl wrote: »
    Are you tapering for this Anna, or just continuing on with the half plan ?

    FWIW I'd err on the side of caution, and get a guaranteed PB in the bag, by starting at 42:00 pace or thereabouts, seeing how you are at half way, and upping the pace slightly in the second half to finish strong.

    Starting at 40:00 pace is possibly a bit risky and might result in a painful experience :eek: Plenty of 5 milers to get that sub-40 soon enough.

    Thanks BG, I'll probably do a couple of days mini-taper this week to be relatively fresh for it.
    belcarra wrote: »
    I'd suggest pacing it at 5:10/km * 8.05 = 41.35.
    5:10/km is easy to make calculations. Add a mini-sprint finish and you'd be sub 41:30.

    If you go with the 40min pacers then they will probably be targeting 39:30 in reality so that's even faster again! At least with the safer option you may have the option of speeding up at the end.

    What does Murph suggest?

    He's sick of listening to me :D but he would be in agreement with you and BG...

    yep, I'm thinking go out at 5:10-5:12 pace... that's still a challenge for me!
    I like this strategy. The Jingle Bells is a very hard race to match across the board because it's so fast. You've definitely improved since then though and Bundoran was hilly I think but if you go into the red early on you'll suffer. And 5 miles is a long way when you're suffering. I've been there :D

    Thanks CM, agree completely, I don't think of Jingle Bells as real at all... ! I won't believe I did a sub-25 5k until I do it somewhere else. I'd rather enjoy the day, even if slower!
    yaboya1 wrote: »
    I like this idea in the shorter races. You'd be surprised how long you can hold pace/hang on.
    Sounds like me last year :D

    :pac: :pac: just when I was getting all sensible!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,936 ✭✭✭annapr


    Runchick wrote: »
    Hey Anna regarding the tiredness, had the same thing last week so have slowed down the easy runs a tad, might be worth a similar strategy until you feel better rested. Best of luck on Sunday - agree with the conservative start approach - not very good at it myself but has always been the best outcome when I've managed to do it.

    Good suggestion, thanks!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,272 ✭✭✭Dubgal72


    My tuppence worth is to agree with all the above (including yaboya to a certain extent); start off conservatively and start waving that wand after mile 2 (completed).
    I think you're going to have a good run but as all the above advise, don't hurt too early.
    And early beds for the rest of the week ;)


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 16,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭adrian522


    Yeah, I think 5 mile is a bit different from 5K in the sense that it is possible to go out too hard early. As above I'd go a little (though only a little) conservatively for the first couple of miles, try to pick it up from the half way point and really empty the tank in the last mile.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭hillsiderunner


    Anna, I would start out just behind the 40mins pacers, and allow them to go ahead but still in view over the first two miles .... then depending on how you feel after that you would either try to reduce the gap or just maintain it for mile 3 (or if you're struggling you have the option to back off slightly) ... then continue the mile 3 strategy for the final two.

    Sorry to add another option but I think you might make the sub-40!
    (this strategy worked well for me at DCHM14 when I was targeting 1:50 and knew it was going to be very tight)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭Bungy Girl


    And 5 miles is a long way when you're suffering. I've been there :D

    Lol, me too! (Last mile of Raheny 5 ;) ?)

    I think the 'go out hard and hang on' approach can work for a 5K, but 5 miles is just that bit too far. You're also training for a half, rather than a 5 mile/10K and the calculators tend to work on the assumption that you are training for that distance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    belcarra wrote: »
    I'd suggest pacing it at 5:10/km * 8.05 = 41.35.
    5:10/km is easy to make calculations. Add a mini-sprint finish and you'd be sub 41:30.

    If you go with the 40min pacers then they will probably be targeting 39:30 in reality so that's even faster again! At least with the safer option you may have the option of speeding up at the end.

    What does Murph suggest?

    Nah. No way, over a 5 mile we'll be looking to cut it very tight, maybe 10 seconds under at most hopefully closer to 1 second under! It looks like I'll either be pacing 35 or 40


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,355 ✭✭✭Bungy Girl


    menoscemo wrote: »
    It looks like I'll either be pacing 35 or 40

    Do 35! And can I have a piggy-back please ;)?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭aquinn


    Bungy Girl wrote:
    Do 35! And can I have a piggy-back please ?


    What happened to minding yourself?


Advertisement