The Sub 3 Support Thread

Running Bing · 20-07-2009 7:43pm

mithril wrote: »

This is a re-occurring issue running through the thread. My fastest KM on a flat course in Seville was KM 35 and was still running strongly but I found the last 20 minutes very difficult and shed 1 minute in the last 5k (I finished 3:03).

Why does this happen and is there specific training that offer a remedy or do you just have to accept that you will slow down in the last few KMs and bank a few additional safety minutes in the earlier section of the run?

In my own experience it appears to relate more towards accumulated muscle damage than running out of energy as glycogen stocks are used up.

Is it a concidence that my longest run is 23 miles (foolowing the general guidelines) and after this distance in a race is where I start to slow.

Do ultra-runners suffer the same way when running a marathon distance?
Would increasing my longest training run to a full marathon length help?

4:15 marathoner here so take with a large grain of salt but do you ever do fast finish long runs? Basically the last 1-3 miles are run at closer to tempo pace. Just brainstorming here but I imagine that could be helpful for finishing stronger.

Also I came across these tables which seem a bit more realistic than the McMillan ones.

Peckham · 20-07-2009 7:45pm

On the subject of overseas marathons....got my entry form for London at the weekend. Was pleasantly surprised to see that the entry fee is £32 (only £28 if a member of a UK athletics club). Compared to likes of Berlin and New York, that's very cheap. Guess it's unfair to compare it to Dublin as it undoubtedly gets better funding from sponsors etc.

Slogger Jogger · 20-07-2009 7:48pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

IMO Rotterdam is the best marathon in the world.

Very fast course, good crowd support, excellent aid stations, incredibly well organised chip collection, perfectly organised start, good value, brilliant post race "stuff" (free videos, photos and race analysis), great technical finishers T. I could go on - it really is fantastic. It's in April, usually around teh same time as Paris.

Really? I found it a very slow course

You're right of course, it was just me that was slow

mithril · 22-07-2009 1:37pm

Running Bing wrote: »

4:15 marathoner here so take with a large grain of salt but do you ever do fast finish long runs? Basically the last 1-3 miles are run at closer to tempo pace. Just brainstorming here but I imagine that could be helpful for finishing stronger.

Also I came across these tables which seem a bit more realistic than the McMillan ones.

Yes, that’s a common approach as well. A lot of marathon runners, divide their long run into 3; first third very easy, second third normal pace and final third full target marathon pace. Unfortunately, I am trying not to aggravate an ankle injury at the moment, so the best I can achieve is to get the target long distance run completed at a fairly easy pace.

This table appears to be a decathlon scoring table and may not be directly applicable. Decathletes run 100, 400m, 1500m so should perform relatively better at the shorter distances and not as well in the marathon.

I think the same comment though is applicable to McMillan. McMillan makes it clear that a good 10KM runner will not achieve the equivalent marathon time unless they do specific marathon training, LSR etc. However, the converse should also be true. Most marathon runners would not do as much interval training as a middle distance runner (focussing on lactate threshold rather than vo2 max which is more important for the short, fast distances). Therefore, I believe that for most dedicated marathon runners, their corresponding 10KM time should actually predict a slower time than they actually achieve in the marathon. However, the comments above so not appear to support this. My first marathon was last year, and I found it reasonably accurate for that , but I don't have enough data points to draw any valid conclusions.

TFBubendorfer · 22-07-2009 2:04pm

Running Bing wrote: »

Also I came across these tables which seem a bit more realistic than the McMillan ones.

Sorry, have to disagree with you on that. I just set a new PB for a 10k on Sunday. If I look up the equivalent marathon time I come up with 3:19:47. That's no less than 14 minutes slower than my actual marathon PB. I'm used to tables giving me an unrealistically fast marathon time, not an even more unrealistically slow one.

mrak · 22-07-2009 2:38pm

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Sorry, have to disagree with you on that. I just set a new PB for a 10k on Sunday. If I look up the equivalent marathon time I come up with 3:19:47. That's no less than 14 minutes slower than my actual marathon PB. I'm used to tables giving me an unrealistically fast marathon time, not an even more unrealistically slow one.

+1 those tables are hillarious - about 10 mins slower for me on the 10k versus marathon time whereas mcmillan has me to 3 seconds. Might be a personal thing but I'd go with McMillan. On the plus side it was nice to see I should be doing a 1.79 high jump and a 47 hammer throw based on my 10k time (!!).

Racing Flat · 22-07-2009 2:57pm

For me those table running bing posted are uncannily accurate for when I ran 2.59...

Running Bing · 22-07-2009 3:03pm

Sorry, have to disagree with you on that. I just set a new PB for a 10k on Sunday. If I look up the equivalent marathon time I come up with 3:19:47. That's no less than 14 minutes slower than my actual marathon PB. I'm used to tables giving me an unrealistically fast marathon time, not an even more unrealistically slow one.

mrak wrote: »

+1 those tables are hillarious - about 10 mins slower for me on the 10k versus marathon time whereas mcmillan has me to 3 seconds. Might be a personal thing but I'd go with McMillan. On the plus side it was nice to see I should be doing a 1.79 high jump and a 47 hammer throw based on my 10k time (!!).

Out of interest were you training specifically for the 10k's when you ran them or where they part of marathon training?

I suppose its just a personal thing. My 800 and mile times put me comfortably under 3 hours for the marathon on McMillan while those tables put me at around 3:15-20 which seems much more realistic for me.

Gringo78 · 22-07-2009 4:09pm

Running Bing wrote: »

My 800 and mile times put me comfortably under 3 hours for the marathon on McMillan while those tables put me at around 3:15-20 which seems much more realistic for me.

Is that not a self fulfilling prophecy? i.e if McMillan suggests you are capable of Sub 3 and you then train for Sub 3 hitting the required tempo & interval intensities for a Sub 3 time you will have a chance of getting close or achieving it. However, if you believe you are only capable of 3:15-20 well thats what you'll base training intensitys on and thats as good as you'll race on the day.

I think the general consensus is McMillan is probably +-5min accurate on marathon times. If you find then your times don't match up then its usually easy to identify why i.e fast mile time but not achieving anywhere near predicted marathon time....endurance aspect lacking in your training.

mrak · 22-07-2009 4:17pm

Running Bing wrote: »

Out of interest were you training specifically for the 10k's when you ran them or where they part of marathon training?

I suppose its just a personal thing. My 800 and mile times put me comfortably under 3 hours for the marathon on McMillan while those tables put me at around 3:15-20 which seems much more realistic for me.

Hi - I was mainly training for the marathon at the time and racing for fun along the way. I would plug in a 10k or better a half to predict your marathon time rather than an 800 or mile. The 800 worked out for me as well but I'd say that was just luck.

Stupid_Private · 22-07-2009 4:21pm

mrak wrote: »

+1 those tables are hillarious - about 10 mins slower for me on the 10k versus marathon time whereas mcmillan has me to 3 seconds. Might be a personal thing but I'd go with McMillan. On the plus side it was nice to see I should be doing a 1.79 high jump and a 47 hammer throw based on my 10k time (!!).

Racing Flat wrote: »

For me those table running bing posted are uncannily accurate for when I ran 2.59...

I'm with mrak. If I put in my old marathon times to mcmillan it gives my 10 mile and 10k times to within 10 seconds. It must be to do with the types of training as I think our training mirrors each other.

Good to see there is a table that reflects your times RF, not for me though. That table says I can run a 32 minute 10k! I would LOVE to be able to run a 32 minute 10k

Peckham · 22-07-2009 4:31pm

Racing Flat wrote: »

For me those table running bing posted are uncannily accurate for when I ran 2.59...

Including the 3.50 pole vault?

Running Bing · 22-07-2009 4:32pm

Gringo78 wrote: »

Is that not a self fulfilling prophecy? i.e if McMillan suggests you are capable of Sub 3 and you then train for Sub 3 hitting the required tempo & interval intensities for a Sub 3 time you will have a chance of getting close or achieving it. However, if you believe you are only capable of 3:15-20 well thats what you'll base training intensitys on and thats as good as you'll race on the day.

It'll probably be about 7 years before I run a marathon so Im not too worried about it.:P

Just seems the level Im at 3:15 is more realistic (thats being objective, Im certainly no racing pessimist and I believe I am potentially well capable of sub 3).

--amadeus-- · 22-07-2009 4:39pm

Have a look at this calculator then.

Uses a range of formulas to give a set of results. Shows me as sub 3 for my 10k PB on most (so I prefer it to McMillan

)

Running Bing · 22-07-2009 4:43pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Have a look at this calculator then.

Uses a range of formulas to give a set of results. Shows me as sub 3 for my 10k PB on most (so I prefer it to McMillan )

I like that, nice the way it gives a range of formulas.

It all boils down to the 16 second rule I suppose, if your well trained you should be able to run twice the distance by adding 16 seconds per mile to your pace.

Anybody believe that?

TFBubendorfer · 22-07-2009 4:47pm

Gringo78 wrote: »

Is that not a self fulfilling prophecy? i.e if McMillan suggests you are capable of Sub 3 and you then train for Sub 3 hitting the required tempo & interval intensities for a Sub 3 time you will have a chance of getting close or achieving it.

I think the general consensus is McMillan is probably +-5min accurate on marathon times..

How I wish the McMillan calculations were a self-fulfilling prohecy! They are anything but for me.

Well, +-5min accurate on marathon times they almost are. Unfortunately, it's the - side for me, and those are exactly the minutes I'm struggling with.

TFBubendorfer · 22-07-2009 4:49pm

Running Bing wrote: »

It all boils down to the 16 second rule I suppose, if your well trained you should be able to run twice the distance by adding 16 seconds per mile to your pace.

Anybody believe that?

That works extremely well for me from the 5k to the half marathon. It's for the marathon that it falls apart.

--amadeus-- · 29-07-2009 9:51am

Plan yesterday was for 8 miles w/4 @ LT, described by P&D as 15k race pace. My 10k PB (set in the run up to Rotterdam this spring) is 38:45 or around 6:15/mile. So I would guesstimate my LT pace to be in or around 6:30/mile, which fits with McMillans Tempo run range of 6:19 - 6:35.

But here's the thing - I *always* struggle with LT workout pace in training. In races I can hit significantly higher paces than in training, even though it feels like equivalent effort. Now I know that a lot of that is race day magic and part of it is the fitness levels. I doubt I'm in sub 39 10k shape at the minute for example. But does anyone else struggle with LT pace or is it just me?

Secondly my PMP is 6:45 - 6:50/mile (I'll decide how brave I feel nearer the time!). There is a fairly small margin between LT and PMP. Is everyone else in the same boat? Is that a good thing (the closer you run the marathon to your LT the faster you'll be). Would doing the LT sessions as PMP sessions make any real world difference to performance?

Krusty_Clown · 29-07-2009 11:22am

I'm a long way off sub-3, but have been reading the P&D book/schedule a lot of late (currently on week 6 of the 12 week program). Shouldn't your LT runs be closer to 6:23? (equivalent 15k pace for a sub 3 marathon).

You can't run your marathon at Lactate threshold, so your pace for LT needs to be a good bit faster than your planned marathon pace. I'm running my LT runs at about 6:35-6:40, for a PMP of 7:09/mile. As I progress through the program, the LT runs are getting longer, but I'm also finding them easier, as my speed picks up.

Oh, one more thing: I'm running my LT based on my planned pmp equivalent, rather than my current best performance (which would have me running them slightly faster, based on a race in March).

Clum · 29-07-2009 11:40am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But here's the thing - I *always* struggle with LT workout pace in training. In races I can hit significantly higher paces than in training, even though it feels like equivalent effort. Now I know that a lot of that is race day magic and part of it is the fitness levels. I doubt I'm in sub 39 10k shape at the minute for example. But does anyone else struggle with LT pace or is it just me?

Don't forget that as a race approaches you normally rest beforehand for a few days with easy training. In a hard marathon training program there's not too much rest and the legs are tired.

Any LT runs I do are about 5 miles in distance and I don't get anywhere near 10k race pace. I run a 6 min mile 10k race pace but only push a 6.25 for LTs and that feels tough.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Secondly my PMP is 6:45 - 6:50/mile (I'll decide how brave I feel nearer the time!). There is a fairly small margin between LT and PMP. Is everyone else in the same boat? Is that a good thing (the closer you run the marathon to your LT the faster you'll be). Would doing the LT sessions as PMP sessions make any real world difference to performance?

Run the LT sessions at threshold pace not PMP. as part of my training I also run a 10 miler each week at PMP and can assure you it feels so much easier than the LT runs, even if it is only 20 seconds per mile slower. Doesn't look like a lot on paper, 6.25 vs 6.45, but it does feel much easier.

asimonov · 29-07-2009 11:59am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Plan yesterday was for 8 miles w/4 @ LT, described by P&D as 15k race pace. My 10k PB (set in the run up to Rotterdam this spring) is 38:45 or around 6:15/mile. So I would guesstimate my LT pace to be in or around 6:30/mile, which fits with McMillans Tempo run range of 6:19 - 6:35.

But here's the thing - I *always* struggle with LT workout pace in training. In races I can hit significantly higher paces than in training, even though it feels like equivalent effort. Now I know that a lot of that is race day magic and part of it is the fitness levels. I doubt I'm in sub 39 10k shape at the minute for example. But does anyone else struggle with LT pace or is it just me?

Secondly my PMP is 6:45 - 6:50/mile (I'll decide how brave I feel nearer the time!). There is a fairly small margin between LT and PMP. Is everyone else in the same boat? Is that a good thing (the closer you run the marathon to your LT the faster you'll be). Would doing the LT sessions as PMP sessions make any real world difference to performance?

I imagine everyone struggles with their LT runs because the vast majority of our training miles are done at easy pace - its always going to be a step up to 6:30 pace. The perceived effort is amplified if like me you do these on your own and have nothing to occupy the mind only holding the pace and the distance you've left! The only thing i have found that helps is by racing or doing some interval work at sub or around the 6 min mile pace it has helped get my legs used to working harder and then the LT pace felt a little bit easier.

I use Daniels VDOT calculator for working out pace ranges and his training paces for 2:58 marathon (equivalent of 38:42 10K) and a VDOT of 54 are as follows:

MP pace is 6:49
LT pace 6:26
Mile Interval pace is 5:55

I don't think you should do tempo runs at PMP as the idea behind the tempo run is to push your threshold level out allowing you to hit your PMP at a lower heart rate rather than just get used to running at PMP.

I stand to be corrected though.

aero2k · 29-07-2009 12:29pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

In races I can hit significantly higher paces than in training, even though it feels like equivalent effort. Now I know that a lot of that is race day magic and part of it is the fitness levels. I doubt I'm in sub 39 10k shape at the minute for example. But does anyone else struggle with LT pace or is it just me?

+1 on all the above. However I feel things are getting better for me. I've recently acquired a Forerunner 305 which is helping keep me honest regarding pace. I did one of Tergat's suggested workouts yesterday, 5 x 0.75 mile @ 10k pace (I'm using 6:13, using McMillan to calculate based on my recent 5k time). I struggled with the pace, and when I downloaded the workout to the PC, I found as well as being a bit too slow (around 10 sec/mile) my HR was about 10 bpm slower than expected. In other words I wasn't trying as hard as I thought I was. The positive side of this is I feel fresh today, and I expect next week's "big workout" to be more successful.
Like you, I find races to be worth around 10 secs/mile for the same perceived exertion. I'd guess it's a pretty much universal problem.

mithril · 29-07-2009 2:43pm

May not work for everyone, but I do my tempo run on track and I find the required pace easy enough to maintain. I was concerned that on the principle of specificity that running on track would not translate to another surface but my experience is that I am much faster as a result in a road race as well. I also add long MP intervals into my long runs to get used to the experience of running fast on a road surface.

Gringo78 · 29-07-2009 2:59pm

aero2k wrote: »

I've recently acquired a Forerunner 305 which is helping keep me honest regarding pace. I did one of Tergat's suggested workouts yesterday, 5 x 0.75 mile @ 10k pace (I'm using 6:13, using McMillan to calculate based on my recent 5k time). I struggled with the pace, and when I downloaded the workout to the PC, I found as well as being a bit too slow (around 10 sec/mile) my HR was about 10 bpm slower than expected.

on the forerunner if you set the auto lap feature to the rep time (i.e 0.75 miles) and set up one of the screens to read Average Lap Pace rather than Pace, it makes it much easier to maintain the correct rep pace, likewise for tempo runs. I found instantaneous pace just bounces around too much and you end up at the end of the rep 5 or 10 secs too short or too fast.

tisnotover · 29-07-2009 3:04pm

Gringo78 wrote: »

on the forerunner if you set the auto lap feature to the rep time (i.e 0.75 miles) and set up one of the screens to read Average Lap Pace rather than Pace, it makes it much easier to maintain the correct rep pace, likewise for tempo runs. I found instantaneous pace just bounces around too much and you end up at the end of the rep 5 or 10 secs too short or too fast.

a big +1 on this. finding tempo pace much easier to hold now with av lap pace and av pace showing.

Krusty_Clown · 29-07-2009 3:24pm

Alternatively for intervals, create an advanced workout (either in Garmin Training Centre or on the watch), set the number of intervals and the type and duration of rest between reps, and it'll manage the intervals and reps for you, and display the pace for the actual rep.

When doing tempo or general runs, I also set it to auto-lap each mile, and use lap-pace.

Peckham · 29-07-2009 4:27pm

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

When doing tempo or general runs, I also set it to auto-lap each mile, and use lap-pace.

+1 to this. Garmins really work best when set to auto-lap each mile (or km depending on your viewpoint) - the only time this doesn't work effectively is in an interval session

aero2k wrote: »

+ I did one of Tergat's suggested workouts yesterday, 5 x 0.75 mile @ 10k pace

What recovery do you use for this session?

aero2k · 29-07-2009 4:37pm

[quote=Peckham;61366225 What recovery do you use for this session?[/quote]
Hi Peckam,

5 x .75 mile @ 6.13, recovery 2 mins jogging. I think I'll try 2 1/2 min next time as I found by the time I was recovered enough to have a drink it was time to go again. I skipped the 5th interval as I felt it was too much on the day.

Thanks to all for the Garmin tips, I'd figured out the interval setting but it never occurred to me to display average lap pace. I did use average pace for the Adidas 5 mile and found it good. I also use auto-lap on my normal runs, though I don't usually have a target pace I like to know how fast - or slow - I'm going.

Rusty Cogs 08 · 29-07-2009 5:00pm

Gringo78 wrote: »

on the forerunner if you set the auto lap feature to the rep time (i.e 0.75 miles) and set up one of the screens to read Average Lap Pace rather than Pace, it makes it much easier to maintain the correct rep pace, likewise for tempo runs. I found instantaneous pace just bounces around too much and you end up at the end of the rep 5 or 10 secs too short or too fast.

How did you change it from 'Pace' to 'Average Lap Pace' ? (We're talking a 405 here yes ?)

Gringo78 · 29-07-2009 5:25pm

Rusty Cogs 08 wrote: »

How did you change it from 'Pace' to 'Average Lap Pace' ? (We're talking a 405 here yes ?)

forerunner 305 - Settings - General - Data Fields and then you can select what each screen shows
forerunner 405 - Menu - Settings - Data Fields

Lots of other options besides average lap pace....e.g I have a screen set up showing Average HR for the lap also

The Sub 3 Support Thread

Comments