Pacing

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I realise I'm a bit of an impatient runner, but I read all
these articles and books on running and they say things
like "run at your 5k pace for 4 minutes, rest for 1
minute, run at your 800m pace...", but I don't know any of
that. I ran a half marathon with an average heart rate of
169 and ran a 10k also averaging 169, three weeks later,
but the 10k was quite a bit faster than 1/2 (relatively
speaking), surely I did something wrong.

It seems to me that working out your pace is analogous to
putting a gallon of fuel in a car and attempting to drive
X miles as fast as possible. Either you go too fast, run
out and have to push for the last half a mile, or you go
too slow and have 1/4 gallon left at the end. Only if
you're an expert do you finish the race on empty.

So, if I had to figure out the fuel economy of a car, I'd
put the fuel in and drive at 20mph until I ran out, put
some more in, drive at 30mph until I ran out, and repeat.
Very quickly I'd be able to work out the optimum speed to
race at.

Now, I'm smart enough to realise that there are a lot of
smart runners and coaches around. So why wouldn't the
running equivalent of the above work out, i.e. run at
7min/mile until I can't run any more, run at 8 min/mile,
etc, etc.? Then work out my optimal pace for each
distance?

Paul

All of those would require all out efforts from which you
would have to recover before attempting the next one.
Instead race a 5K and a 10K and use those results. The
relationship is pretty strong in terms of being able to
predict performance from one race to another (assuming one
is properly prepared for each event).

The use of HR to set intensity during a race if fraught with
problems. Temperature being the biggest issue.

Quoted message said:

I realise I'm a bit of an impatient runner, but I read all
these articles and books on running and they say things
like "run at your 5k pace for 4 minutes, rest for 1
minute, run at your 800m pace...", but I don't know any of
that. I ran a half marathon with an average heart rate of
169 and ran a 10k also averaging 169, three weeks later,
but the 10k was quite a bit faster than 1/2 (relatively
speaking), surely I did something wrong.

You weren't all that well trained for the greater distance.

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that working out your pace is analogous to
putting a gallon of fuel in a car and attempting to drive
X miles as fast as possible. Either you go too fast, run
out and have to push for the last half a mile, or you go
too slow and have 1/4 gallon left at the end. Only if
you're an expert do you finish the race on empty.

If that's the case, it's only because rapid gains make it
hard to tell where you're at performance-wise. This is a
nice "problem" to have.

Actually, if you have good racing instincts, you will learn
to push harder as the race progresses, until you're at
maximum effort as you charge towards the finish line.

Quoted message said:

So, if I had to figure out the fuel economy of a car, I'd
put the fuel in and drive at 20mph until I ran out, put
some more in, drive at 30mph until I ran out, and repeat.
Very quickly I'd be able to work out the optimum speed to
race at.

Now, I'm smart enough to realise that there are a lot of
smart runners and coaches around. So why wouldn't the
running equivalent of the above work out, i.e. run at
7min/mile until I can't run any more, run at 8 min/mile,
etc, etc.?

It doesn't work because most people simply run faster in
race settings, and this is even more true of beginners.

You get a beginner to run at tempo pace "for as long as
they can" and most of them will stop after about 5k. Enter
the same runner in a 10k race and watch them hold the same
pace from start to finish. For whatever reason, even
beginners are quite good at pushing themselves pretty hard
in a race setting.

Quoted message said:

Then work out my optimal pace for each distance?

Stop thinking so much! Just keep running and you'll get
faster. You're doing just fine. At this stage, "optimal"
would be to steadily improve. Besides quitting or getting
injured, there are few things that can prevent you from
rapidly improving.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

In article said:

Quoted message said:

So, if I had to figure out the fuel economy of a car, I'd
put the fuel in and drive at 20mph until I ran out, put
some more in, drive at 30mph until I ran out, and repeat.
Very quickly I'd be able to work out the optimum speed to
race at.

Quoted message said:

All of those would require all out efforts from which you
would have to recover before attempting the next one.
Instead race a 5K and a 10K and use those results. The
relationship is pretty strong in terms of being able to
predict performance from one race to another (assuming one
is properly prepared for each event).

I don't understand how racing a 5K is better than running at
estimated 5K pace for as long as possible. If I manage to
maintain the pace for 4K or 6K, surely that tells me more
than the estimated 5K pace was either right or wrong as the
race does?

Paul

In article said:

Stop thinking so much! Just keep running and you'll
get faster.

Heh! Ok, I promise I'll run a few races and come back later.

It's just that when I read stuff like this:
zdap.comarticle.htmOpen ↗ my mind goes into
overload and I think I can shortcut all this stuff that I
suppose every other runner has to go through...

Cheers,

Paul

Hi Paul,

on 5/21/2004 11:53 AM said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Sam said:

Quoted message said:

So, if I had to figure out the fuel economy of a car, I'd
put the fuel in and drive at 20mph until I ran out, put
some more in, drive at 30mph until I ran out, and repeat.
Very quickly I'd be able to work out the optimum speed to
race at.

Quoted message said:

All of those would require all out efforts from which you
would have to recover before attempting the next one.
Instead race a 5K and a 10K and use those results. The
relationship is pretty strong in terms of being able to
predict performance from one race to another (assuming one
is properly prepared for each event).

I don't understand how racing a 5K is better than running
at estimated 5K pace for as long as possible. If I manage
to maintain the pace for 4K or 6K, surely that tells me
more than the estimated 5K pace was either right or wrong
as the race does?

I guess the point is that you're both right ;-) but you are
saying that you run your "estimated 5k" pace. To do that you
need to have an idea what that is. Yes you could estimate
and run again if you're wrong, but that is basically what
most people do. They run a 5k race and note the time and
there perception of the race. If they feelt like they have
more energy at the end, they will have to try again. If they
didn't get to the end, they would have to try again.
Practice being the the key here.

So when a training book want to make you run at you "10k
level" it's already a translation of how your muscles react
to that kind of work. They could also have said that you
should run with the pace which you could keep for *exactly*
an hour. But what can you exctly do in an hour?

If someone ask me to run at my 800m pace, which I have no
clue about, I know it must be faster than my 5k pace (or at
least I hope so). Well, guess what, just like your gallon
test I would estimate my speed and try. Now if I feel that
the workout was easier or harder than I expected, I would
try to adjust. Usually such training programs does not just
say that you should run at your 800m pace for so and so
long, but also why and how much. Now if we talk 800m it's
probably speed/interval training, so as good training guide
will explain to you how that should feel. There were someone
here in r.r who said that when you run intervals (which 800m
would be), your last interval should not be slower than any
of the earlier once, if they were you picked the wrong
speed. So you're given clues how to learn if you picked the
right speed.

Martin

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, Sam

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, if I had to figure out the fuel economy of a car,
I'd put the fuel in and drive at 20mph until I ran out,
put some more in, drive at 30mph until I ran out, and
repeat. Very quickly I'd be able to work out the
optimum speed to race at.

Quoted message said:

All of those would require all out efforts from which
you would have to recover before attempting the next
one. Instead race a 5K and a 10K and

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

those results. The relationship is pretty strong in
terms of being able

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

predict performance from one race to another (assuming
one is properly prepared for each event).

I don't understand how racing a 5K is better than running
at estimated 5K pace for as long as possible. If I manage
to maintain the pace for 4K or 6K, surely that tells me
more than the estimated 5K pace was either right or wrong
as the race does?

Paul

I see your point with one exception, race performances will
almost always be better (faster) than a simulated race
attempt for 4K or 6K.

You can certainly try it your way. In a way you are correct
in that even in a race if you have never run one, you are
guessing as to your pace. However, during training you can
certainly get a feel for what pace to maintain. I use
shorter efforts, repeated with short recoveries to get a
feel for pace

My first problem is that his graphs are set up all wrong
(does guy really have a PhD and is it in exercise science?).
Heart rate should never be listed as the independent
variable (that is on the X axis). HR is a dependent
variable. It is the intensity that determines HR, not the
other way around.

Using one's performance, you can do a lot of statistical
analyses like critical power estimates that are interesting,
but not necessary for all but a few and mostly the
scientists who are looking at running performances.

There are far simpler ways to me to assess training
improvements. You can do short time trials that are not all
out efforts to get a feel for it. If one insists on using
HR, you can run at a set pace and see if HR is lower. Even
if it is not and it feels easier, then you have improved.

Ultimately for a racer, the way to tell is to race. If you
are not interested in racing, then pay less attention to
specifics. Do some longish runs, do a little faster running
on some days, recover properly.

IIRC, you are pretty new to running, at this point I would
suggest run and forget about getting too nuanced. Once a
week, do a longer than usual run. Once a week do a run that
is a little faster than normal. I remember one of the top US
distance coaches telling an athlete who wanted to train
under the coach that the athlete should come back when he
was able to run 100 miles per week. At this point, I would
say run (not necessarily 100 mpw!).

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Donovan Rebbechi

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stop thinking so much! Just keep running and you'll get
faster.

Heh! Ok, I promise I'll run a few races and come
back later.

It's just that when I read stuff like this:
zdap.comarticle.htmOpen ↗ my mind goes into
overload and I think I can shortcut all this stuff that I
suppose every other runner has to go through...

Cheers,

Paul

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Stop thinking so much! Just keep running and you'll get
faster.

Heh! Ok, I promise I'll run a few races and come
back later.

Yes, frequent racing (especially short races) is a good
idea because you get rapid feedback, which is desirable
when you're improving rapidly. Don't overdo it though --
I'd suggest 1-2 races a month (and if you do 2, make one of
them a 5k)

More intricate programs like Daniels are good once you reach
the point where you can't just PR by entering a race -- they
let you plan your next big race. But a 6 month training
schedule is not all that useful if you make observable
improvements in as little as two weeks. Such a program takes
some discipline because for example you will probably not
see any improvement through the 6 week base building phase
(whereas if you ran on a simpler program you would see
considerable improvement over any 6 week period)

Quoted message said:

It's just that when I read stuff like this:
zdap.comarticle.htmOpen ↗ my mind goes into
overload

As Sam pointed out, this page is basically the work of
someone who knows how to number-crunch, but is very naive
about exercise science. For example, to his credit he's
independently discovered the effects of fatigue and racing
on running economy -- but these are well-known by exercise
scientists.

For good information on the science, look at Daniels
and Noakes.

To address the premise of the page:

I think at one time or another, every runner asks
themselves "I wonder how well I'm running? Am I
getting faster?"

I can tell you with reasonable certainy that provided that
you are training consistently, the answer is "yes, you are".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Sam said:

My first problem is that his graphs are set up all wrong
(does guy really have a PhD and is it in exercise
science?). Heart rate should never be listed as the
independent variable (that is on the X axis). HR is a
dependent variable. It is the intensity that determines
HR, not the other way around.

I think it's pretty clear from the page that he doesn't have
a PhD in exercise science (note that he doesn't claim this
and he does appear awfully naive)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

email hidden said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Donovan Rebbechi

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Stop thinking so much! Just keep running and you'll get
faster.

Heh! Ok, I promise I'll run a few races and come back
later.

Yes, frequent racing (especially short races) is a good
idea because you

get

Quoted message said:

rapid feedback, which is desirable when you're improving
rapidly. Don't

overdo

Quoted message said:

it though -- I'd suggest 1-2 races a month (and if you do
2, make one of

them

Quoted message said:

a 5k)

More intricate programs like Daniels are good once you
reach the point

where

Quoted message said:

you can't just PR by entering a race -- they let you plan
your next big

race.

Quoted message said:

But a 6 month training schedule is not all that useful if
you make

observable

Quoted message said:

improvements in as little as two weeks. Such a program
takes some

discipline

Quoted message said:

because for example you will probably not see any
improvement through the

6

Quoted message said:

week base building phase (whereas if you ran on a simpler
program you

would

Quoted message said:

see considerable improvement over any 6 week period)

Quoted message said:

It's just that when I read stuff like this:
zdap.comarticle.htmOpen ↗ my mind goes
into overload

As Sam pointed out, this page is basically the work of
someone who knows

how

Quoted message said:

to number-crunch, but is very naive about exercise
science. For example,

to his

Quoted message said:

credit he's independently discovered the effects of
fatigue and racing on running economy -- but these are well-
known by exercise scientists.

For good information on the science, look at Daniels
and Noakes.

I would take David Martin (Better Training For
Distance Runners) over Noakes , but that might be a
personal thing.

Quoted message said:

To address the premise of the page:

I think at one time or another, every runner asks
themselves "I wonder how well I'm running? Am I getting
faster?"

I can tell you with reasonable certainy that provided
that you are

training

Quoted message said:

consistently, the answer is "yes, you are".

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗