RunningAHEAD - Topic: Intervals: paced, all out or somewhere in between

Riggs 2.0

Marquess of Utopia

posted: 3/13/2008 at 9:20 PM
modified: 3/24/2008 at 3:24 PM

Today's work out was: 1x2mile @ 1/2; 2x1 mile @ 10k; 2x800 @ 5k Which should equal about: 1x2mile @ 6:11; 2x1 mile @ 5:50; 2x800 @ 2:49 But I ran: 1x2mile @ 5:59* with a fence I had to jump over twice 2x1 mile @ 5:44 & 5:43 2x800 @ 2:47 & 2:39 I felt smooth, but should I back off or should keep it up as long as I recover fine.

Crabby

Dog-Love

posted: 3/13/2008 at 9:44 PM

WOW Like the wind

Run like you are on fire! 5K goal 24:00 or less (PR 24:34) 10K goal 50:00 or less (PR 52:45) HM goal 1:55:00 or less (PR 2:03:02) Marathon Goal...Less than my PR (PR 4:33:23)

Hannibal Granite

posted: 3/14/2008 at 9:10 AM
modified: 3/14/2008 at 9:10 AM

Personally I feel that if you are consistent or getting faster throughout the workout (you were), didn't feel you were pushing all out to maintain pace (only you can answer that that) and still had something left at the end (which you obviously did with that last 800) then you don't need to be too concerned with what you were 'supposed' to run. It could be you are in a little better shape than you though or it could be that you handle shorter faster workouts better than you race or it could be something else. Whatever the reason remember that the paces we're 'supposed' to work out at are only guidelines. Like most of the "rules" of running they work for everyone on average, but must be fitted to each individual on a case-by-case basis. I'll bet that you Max HR isn't EXACTLY (220 - your age) either Smile

By the way, regardless of pace that is a very solid workout.

"You NEED to do this" - Shara

JimHowe

posted: 3/14/2008 at 10:00 AM

First of all, nice workout! It sure looks like you have recovered from your illness. Since you haven't raced in quite a while it might be necessary to do a challenging workout such as this one if you want to run fast in your very first race back. My adivce would be to just do the workouts that you have planned before your upcoming race. After that I would base future workout paces on the pace you run in that race. Resist the temptation to run them harder even if you can. What you just did looks like high 34's - low 35's 10k stuff.

Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

crb81

posted: 3/18/2008 at 10:19 PM

I'm in awe.

crb81 2008 goals sub-20 5k, sub-43 10k, 1:35 half, 3:20 marathon

Riggs 2.0

Marquess of Utopia

posted: 3/19/2008 at 8:38 AM
modified: 3/19/2008 at 8:39 AM

I know better, and yet I throw the questions out there because I struggle between reason and the desire to push myself harder. Yesterday's tempo run I forgot my watch, once I realized it I thought it would keep me from running too fast. I don't think that worked, because I was restless last night and found it difficult to fall asleep. Thursday is 7x1000's! I'll let you know how that goes, I hope the weather will be nice for the first day of Spring!

Riggs 2.0

Marquess of Utopia

posted: 3/20/2008 at 3:59 PM
modified: 3/20/2008 at 4:08 PM

Interval 1 km 3:34 5:45 pace Rest — 1:21 Interval 1 km 3:36 5:48 pace Rest — 1:07 Interval 1 km 3:37 5:50 pace Very short rests, hope I can keep up the pace. Rest — 1:17 Interval 1 km 3:35 5:47 pace Started to feel more relaxed. Rest — 1:14 Interval 1 km 3:35 5:47 pace Rest — 1:12 Interval 1 km 3:37 5:50 pace Left quad felt a little tight. Rest — 0:59 Interval 1 km 3:33 5:43 pace Seth (the guy who has been directing our workouts for the last five weeks) is training for Drake Relay's 1/2 marathon, he has been using this workout from Ryan Halls Half Marathon program; Which I just found here: http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244-258-12006-0,00.html http://www.runnersworld.com/charts/hallchart.html Next week I'm deviating from the program; I’ll go moderate on the tempo, and run 200’s and 400’s easy to loosen things up. Big 10K on the 30th!

JimHowe

posted: 3/21/2008 at 4:39 PM

That was a helluva workout, Joe, especially considering the short recovery intervals What's the course like that you'll be running? I'm thinking sub-37 on a normal course, but who knows judging by that workout. My estimate could be conservative. I'm doing a 5k tomorrow morning, then coming back next week for a 10k on the same day as yours. I've yet to break 19 in my second running life but think I might have a shot this time. Good luck if you don't stop back between now and them.

Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

Riggs 2.0

Marquess of Utopia

posted: 3/21/2008 at 8:32 PM

Jim, Good luck in your 5K tomorrow!

JimHowe

posted: 3/23/2008 at 8:14 AM
modified: 3/23/2008 at 8:15 AM

Quote from Riggs 2.0 on 3/21/2008 at 8:32 PM:

Jim, Good luck in your 5K tomorrow!

I missed the sub-19 yesterday and also fell 2 seconds short of my seniors pr by running 19:06. I thought I had it in the bag too when I saw the 3-mile split of 18:14. Evidently the mile marker was misplaced, as it took me 51 seconds to get home from there. I know that I don't have much of a kick, but it's not THAT bad Shocked

.The course was USATF certified so I'm pretty sure that overall distance was accurate. It was a small race of 100-120 and I ended up a distant 3rd overall. First was 16:57 and 2nd was 17:44.

Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

SimonR

posted: 3/24/2008 at 11:10 AM

I can't answer your question, but you have jaw-dropping speed! I'm with Crabby and crb81. Simon.

PBs since age 60: 5k- 24:36, 10k - 47:17. Half Marathon- 1:42:41.

10 miles (unofficial) 1:16:44.

Ennay

A Saucy Wench

posted: 3/24/2008 at 2:35 PM

Quote from JimHowe on 3/23/2008 at 8:14 AM:

I missed the sub-19 yesterday and also fell 2 seconds short of my seniors pr by running 19:06. I thought I had it in the bag too when I saw the 3-mile split of 18:14. Evidently the mile marker was misplaced, as it took me 51 seconds to get home from there. I know that I don't have much of a kick, but it's not THAT bad .The course was USATF certified so I'm pretty sure that overall distance was accurate. It was a small race of 100-120 and I ended up a distant 3rd overall. First was 16:57 and 2nd was 17:44.

I've had a lot of races where the mile markers seem off. The course is certified,but the mile markers are not. Still a damn fine race!

I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

jEfFgObLuE

I've got a fever...

posted: 3/25/2008 at 11:16 AM
modified: 3/25/2008 at 11:17 AM

Quote from JimHowe on 3/23/2008 at 8:14 AM:

Evidently the mile marker was misplaced, as it took me 51 seconds to get home from there.

I hate stuff like that. I ran a race in HS on a course that had incredible misplaced mile markers. My "splits" in that race were 4:40 6:20 4:51 Umm, yeah, not really, no. I'll never know if the total course length was correct, but I suspect it was short since everyone on the team PR'd that day by about 45 sec each. But the miles were definitely way off. I ran a 5k this past weekend and I was amazed how fast the field was. There were only 72 runners, but the top ten were all under 19:00. 16:22 won it, places 1-3 were 16:-- 4-6 were 17:--, and 7-10 were 18:-- (I was 12th with 19:42). The top two masters times were 17:16 and 18:11. Don't assume that small races won't have quality fields! Nice race, Jim!

On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office. But you will wish that you'd spent more time running. Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

JimHowe

posted: 3/25/2008 at 11:26 AM
modified: 3/25/2008 at 11:33 AM

Quote from jEfFgObLuE on 3/25/2008 at 11:16 AM:

I hate stuff like that. I ran a race in HS on a course that had incredible misplaced mile markers. My "splits" in that race were 4:40 6:20 4:51 Umm, yeah, not really, no. I'll never know if the total course length was correct, but I suspect it was short since everyone on the team PR'd that day by about 45 sec each. But the miles were definitely way off. I ran a 5k this past weekend and I was amazed how fast the field was. There were only 72 runners, but the top ten were all under 19:00. 16:22 won it, places 1-3 were 16:-- 4-6 were 17:--, and 7-10 were 18:-- (I was 12th with 19:42). The top two masters times were 17:16 and 18:11. Don't assume that small races won't have quality fields! Nice race, Jim!

Thanks Jeff. Would you believe that I just read your race report, and gave you hell, just 30 seconds before coming here? I kid you not. What a coincidence. P.S. I found out that there were 164 in the race I ran, but a lot of them walked. The first 2 were 16:57, 17:44, while the next 8 of us were all in the 19's. I'm sure the course was accurate even though marker was misplace. It is labled as "record eligible" on USATF certification site. The crew screwed up on that marker was all.

Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

Riggs 2.0

Marquess of Utopia

posted: 3/26/2008 at 4:18 PM

I don't know what's worse incorrect mile markers or the last time I ran a 5k they had a marker at 2KM and 3KM. It would have been nice if they had markers at every KM if they didn't want to do mile markers.

10K Training Group, 8K's are welcome too

Intervals: paced, all out or somewhere in between (Read 690 times)