Forums >Running 101>Critique My Stats On My Latest 10K? Any Advice?
So here's some data from this morning's 10K...Not terribly remarkable other than I seem to be able to maintain a stable pace throughout the run. I do think I could've pushed myself a bit harder. Time will tell I suppose...Thoughts? Observations? Advice? TIA folks.
an amazing likeness
What was your goal? Not time goal...but goal for the run. All out and stagger in on your last step? Even splits? Find the edge of anaerobic and ride it? Was this a race? (hard to tell)
Assuming this was a race, my immediate reaction to the split data was that you left some time on the course in mile 2, given that you went from a 9:17 in mile 2 and sped up by 20 seconds to an 8:57 in mile 3. What looks good was your peak at mile 5, then struggled to hold through 6 -- that's about right for a 10K race, but the fade in the last .25 -- was that mental or physical?
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Well the last bit of the run was an uphill climb from the stream up into the park, so I did slow down for that last bit. As for my goal(s), I was looking (hoping) to finish this run in 55 minutes. This is my first run since switching from Sauconys to ASICs and I did want to see if there's be any difference between this 10K and my last 10K...And WOW! What a difference. Last 10K in my Sauconys hurt me. This entire run felt great all the way through. Not sure if this answers your questions as I'm still really trying to sort out where I'm going with this "running thing" myself...but I'm having a blast while I'm doing it!
For me...in a 10K I'm racing hard, I try to get to 5.5 and feel like I'm goin' die, puke, or quit right there, then struggle to the finish on wobbly legs. Absolutely no idea if that's good approach, but it's what I go with.
Sounds like a good day, Dave. Your steady split progression is a good trend. If you want that 55:00, you've got to get it in the bag by the end of mile 5, there's just not enough miles in a 10K to make up a lot of time from a slow start.
Your steady split progression is a good trend. If you want that 55:00, you've got to get it in the bag by the end of mile 5, there's just not enough miles in a 10K to make up a lot of time from a slow start.
Thanks. I was kinda pleased at how I maintained a relatively stable pace throughout the entire run without really trying, ya know? And yes, that's what I'm looking for...If I want to nail a 55:00, I have to have it in the bag by no later than the end of mile 5. Muchas gracias.
Another thing you might do if you have fairly recent 5K & half marathon races is plug those into McMillan or other calculator and see what it would predict for your 10K time. Unless you've been running longer distances for a while, your 5K time will predict a 10K time that's a little faster than you're probably capable of, and your half marathon time will probably predict a 10K time that's slightly slower than what you could actually do. So if your time for this 10K falls somewhere in between what the calculator predicts off of 5K & half times, then you're probably about where you should expect.
Ooooh....Sounds interesting. I'll check that out too. Thanks Liz. If you'll remember, I just did the Walnut Creek Half last month (very disappointing time though). I've got the Davis Stampede coming up in about a month.
Not dead. Yet.
I can't give you any advice, but I'm curious how you got such a nice smooth line for your pace. This is how most of mine look:
It's like you are using averaging on your's or something. Any ideas how to fix it?
How can we know our limits if we don't test them?
Don't know. I know when I was in the Army I was great at cadence so maybe that has something to do with it. I set myself to a rhythm and stick to it. I was kinda blown away myself. Heh.
I can't give you any advice, but I'm curious how you got such a nice smooth line for your pace. This is how most of mine look: It's like you are using averaging on your's or something. Any ideas how to fix it?
I think it has more to do with the 40min/mile pace at the end of the run (see right most part of chart) than an even pace.
(Remember, 9:16, 9:17 goes to 8:57, ...to 8:47. There should be some slope to the line rather than a flat line).
It's the scale, not the reality of what you see.
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
I see your point! His pace goes down to 40 minutes and mine only goes to 14.
Mmmmm...beer
I think it's just the way the FR10 does pacing, even when you zoom in, the graph is still pretty smooth.
The pace info while you're running is nice and smooth too, it's one of the things I like about the FR10, I forget the term they use for it, but it's a different way of pacing from other Garmin models.
-Dave
My running blog
Goals | sub-18 5k | sub-3 marathon 2:56:46!!
not bad for mile 25
In case you folks aren't aware, there is a RunningAhead calculator too.
RunningAhead has it as well when summarizing GPS Data.
"Smooth GPS data by averaging 10 data points"
I believe that the display within the chart tool does the smoothing and it may be that Eric gives us the option to display with or without the smoothing, while the chart display tool within Garmin (or wherever it was produced) may not provide that option (or it may not be easy to know whether that option is selected).
MTA: I know nothing.
Im jealous. I have a 110.