Forums >Racing>2018 Sub-3. No rules. Run.
Thanks for the advice guys. The numbers of steady rain and 15 mph winds doesn't seem that bad, but the general feel I get for Saturday is that it's going to be really bad. I haven't paid for it yet, and it's a 45 minute drive, so even though I really like this race (had my two best 10Ks here), probably will bail unless something changes.
It's too weeks out from my marathon, so last time in my mind for a tuneup race. I'm hoping I'll be a bit healthier by this weekend, so I think I will still attempt it on my treadmill since it was going to be my final caffeine experiment too. I was thinking I had about 38:30 in me, so will set my treadmill to that and hopefully glean some useful info. I'd have to wait until later Sunday to avoid the weather probably, and I'd rather not mess up my long run that day.
5k- 18:55 (2018) 10K- 39:04 (2017) Marathon- 3:00:10 (2018)
Sorry guys I’m still here. Been crazy busy with work and running.
Getting in 100-108 a week. All power based. Easy days are really easy. I typically go MP power tempos in the AM on wed and fri. Then hit different types of threshold power intervals in the PM on those days. The LR is Sunday which is 22-25 miles that is usually 95 to 100 minutes easy then roll into 60-65 minutes at MP power. Fun to train the right zones for once vs the guessing I was doing the previous 7 years. I’ll try to post more regularly when I get a little more time.
HM: 1/17 1:18:53. FM: 12/18 2:46:04
Completed my 1st and last annual Philly 10K treadmill run in my goal of 38:27 9.7mph throughout). Overall feeling pretty good about the result, although hard to compare a treadmill run.
Positives- 37sec PR, legs felt great throughout, limiting factor seemed to be overheating (probably upper50s in garage), obvious mental struggle, still dealing with cold symptoms, caffeine experiment seemed to work, had to self motivate, lost a few seconds with no sprint finish
Negatives- treadmill, obviously no tangent issues, even pacing done for me, no hills, mentally very different "holding on" as opposed to forcing yourself to go.
My mental calculations suggest to me I have about 2:56-2:58 fitness with good weather(last year's 39:04 PR lead to what I think would have been about 2:59 with normal Philly weather). I'm not sure whether I should go out with the 3hr pacer or not. I believe I will run my best race with a 1 or 2 minute positive split.
Mmmm Bop
Swim - Good to hear from you and glad the new power based training is working out for you. It would be great to see your training again! 👍
Sling - Nice TT on the treadmill....but as you say, it’s not the same as running outside. I do a lot of quality sessions on the treadmill and from my experience and heart rate readings it’s about 15/20 seconds per mile difference. This is a good pace conversion https://www.hillrunner.com/calculators/treadmill-pace-conversions/ You should’ve either set it to 1% incline or the speed at 10.1mph. If it felt controlled then maybe you are in 38:30 shape, plus it was a good workout regardless.
5k - 17:53 (4/19) 10k - 37:53 (11/18) Half - 1:23:18 (4/19) Full - 2:50:43 (4/19)
Swim: I'm glad you dropped in here again! At that mileage it sounds like the training must be going well. Did Dan or Mick convert you to the power method? What is your goal time for CIM? As Mikey said it would be great to see your training as you gear up for that.
Sling: That's a good time for 10k and lines up with sub-3 fitness, though as Mikey said TM paces usually don't correlate directly to the road. I've even noticed differences in machines; for example my own seems more difficult for the same pace compared to the one at my mom's house. That said, either one is much easier for the same pace compared to road running. You just have to use your own experience with your mill and gauge what that 10k would have been worth on the road or track. As far as whether to go with the 3 hour pacer, if you think you are in 2:56-58 shape, I would not. It will be too slow. Though a negative split is nice, I tend to agree with Pfitz that for non-elites, you will get your best time with a slight positive split. If you run a negative split it probably means you could have gone harder (JMac is a good negative splitter and may disagree ). Anyway, for you that would probably mean going out in a 1:27 or 1:28, which would likely be well ahead of the 3 hr group. For my 2:57 I had a 1:28/1:29 positive split. Just my 2 cents.
2:52:16 (2018)
slingrunner - have to agree with others - treadmill runs are no equal to road runs - and yes, different TMs can feel really different. So, let's say you just had a great workout which is great. But I cannot agree with others on an approach to running marathon, especially if it's mostly flat or no major elevations. The approach that always worked for me was even effort throughout the whole distance. You can pay big price if you start too fast or you can find yourself out of strength by mile 22-23 if you started too slow and was not ready for a distance beating. Pace bands some site sells is really good in pace recommendation as far as I remember. But even effort through the race I think is the best approach - if you are actually ready. Of course, it's totally my opinion.
swim - great to hear you are still alive and ready to rock and roll in a month in that international marathon. Not sure why you hide your workouts but I guess there is a reason Maybe you superstitious and decided to exclude extraterrestrial influence
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
I don’t hide my runs. I no longer post them on Strava because my coach couldn’t get all the data prior to me working with him due to how many runs I had to manually enter on Strava over the years.
Sorry swim - what you just said makes absolutely zero sense to me. Or I would say in other words - I have no idea what you just said...
That’s fine.
Calbears- I'm curious why you think for nonelites positive splits aren't correct? What do you think is flawed about pfitz's explanation that it requires more effort to run at the same heartrate, and your slowtwitch? fibers burn out. Obviously for elites even splits or negative splits are often better... you are a stronger runner than I am, so maybe the variables are different for you?
As far as my treadmill, I got a new motor recently, and did some precise calculations by measuring the belt length and velocity last night to make sure it was at the exact speed (I was actually running 9.8 since I realized it was off exactly .1, and thus threw in an extra 25 seconds). I do understand that a treadmill is different from road running. I also think there is a disadvantage in getting no air flow (I race better in 30s than 50s) , and the extra adrenaline of having other runners around. On the treadmill it was basically "let's try and survive the next x minutes at this speed" whereas outside it's pushing yourself to max out all the speed you have. As you said, a quality workout if nothing else.
Not trying to make excuses, and I'll probably find out the answer in 2 weeks, but I would never have been sweating during an outdoor 10K, so I know I was overheating. If it really did save me 15/20 seconds per mile, then I'm going to get a rude awakening in Harrisburg! The 10K wound up not being cancelled, and there were some impressive times, so maybe I should have gone.
Off topic, but I saw the movie Free Solo today, and I'd recommend it to this crowd. It's a documentary about the first attempted free climb of El Capitan. Different sport, but I saw a lot of parallels with what we do, and is one of the scariest movies I've seen (it's best not to research it too much before watching).
Have to find the book to check what Fitz wrote there. Ok, it's a book, so, he has to give his opinion which is obviously highly regarded. But I lose his logic at the point where he says our body starts to recruit more fast-twitch fibers and those are less economical and that's why you will be bad at the second half. First of all, we are not elite runners and we have no clue what percentage of slow, mid or fast twitch fibers each of us has. We just don't have resources to find out. So, that's one thing. Second, and probably the main thing - I kind of know myself and know what is easier for me to implement. When I ran first marathons I just had no idea what I am capable of. But then I just followed a strategy to run each next marathon faster than the previous one - not by few seconds (as some of people here trying to offend me ) but just few few seconds per mile faster than previous marathons - for the second and thirst if was 5-10 seconds per mile faster and then, after 2:55 marathon it was 2-3 secs per mile faster and at the end it was just a time target. Anyway.... When I say even pacing it doesn't mean actually even effort - that's the key. The idea is that you should understand that the second half of the marathon will be tougher than the first one - so, as a result, I might run 6:50 pace at heart rate 156-162 for the first 10 miles and then the HR will get to 170-172 by mile 22-23 and then last 3 miles you just give all you left to reach your goal time (or achieve best time you are capable of on that given day). So, the idea is to get to the goal pace early at as low HR as possible and then trying to keep the pace increasing your HR (or your effort). Worked for me most of the times. Of course we are talking mostly about courses that allow to achieve even pacing. And of course, I am just sharing my experience and what works for me - in no way I am trying to overrule people who have much more credibility and authority to talk about these topics.
I believe the pfitz logic is that you want to attempt to run the whole race at the edge of what you can handle. Negative splits would mean speeding up in the 2nd half, and most of us become less efficient the farther we run, not more.
I think it's difficult to say "what works" for somebody, since we can't ever live the alternate scenario where you might have tried something else that worked even better. However if you throw out anecdotal evidence, I believe if you looked at a very large sample of nonelite runners, you would find that the best results came from positive splits (and I assume that research is out there). Negative splits are probably the safer approach, and if you are going for career average, the way to go, but if you want to obtain that magical best number possible, a small positive is the way to go for nearly everybody.
RIP Milkman
I guess I’m biased because I always negative split my PR’s, but I agree with Cal on this. I don’t really understand Pftiz’s logic here, just because the race gets harder doesn’t mean that positive splits are correct. He never really convinced me in his book that it made sense. In fact, I would argue specifically because we’re non-elites we should be going for negative splits. How many marathons have been blown up because someone went out too hard? Also, how many have blown up because someone said “I can just bank on the 1-2 minute positive split?” I’ve run two marathons, but the second one was SO much more enjoyable than the first specifically because I negative split. I guess I’m going to take the a) more enjoyable approach and b) the one that leads to less likely blow up each time. However, I will say that I think the biggest mistake people make is going for a specific time, rather than what their fitness is, especially round numbers. A lot of people are in 3:01 or 3:02 shape, but 2:59:XX sounds so muc nicer so they just go for it.
Swim - good to hear from you, please stick around. Work is a valid excuse, but we’re all busy with running so that one is thrown out
Sling - Good TT, I’m in the minority and find treadmills way harder than running outside.
Me - Well, the taper injury bug has hit me. I was wondering when it would happen. This time, it’s my right foot again, but way worse than last year with the pain as I can’t walk without a limp. WHY DO I ALWAYS GET SOMETHING WHEN I’M TAPERING? This isn’t the usual taper madness, which to me is when you get random muscle or tendon soreness. I looked it up and fits the classic definition of metatarsalgia. I have very bad pain in the ball of my foot, sort of feels like you stepped on a stone. I don’t understand how this sort of stuff just pops up out of nowhere. Anyway, because I’ve gone through so much taper nonsense over the years, I’m not TOO concerned, but the fact that it’s painful when running or even just walking is not a great sign. Let’s see how the next week goes. Definitely tossing my easy run shoes at this point and getting a fresh new cushioned pair of the same model that’s currently sitting under my bed. I also definitely have gone through some thinking over the past 48 hours of whether this stuff is in my head! I’m pretty optimistic for the classic “bothered me all week but then woke up race day and it didn’t bother me at all” story.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
JMAC- I hope it's just one of those weird things that go away. You still have time, and I bet it will be gone in a few days. You didn't actually do anything to cause it to hurt, right? Those random pains usually just go away.
Positive splits are more fun, and less risk of blowing up, but the extreme training we are all doing for a couple key races a year is the ultimate in risk taking (see weather completely messing up my goal marathon this year). Pfitz's twitch explanation seems very logical to me, and for me it's go big or go home, although I might be willing to make a concession and take a safer 2:59 over a possible 2:57.
I believe if you looked at a very large sample of nonelite runners, you would find that the best results came from positive splits (and I assume that research is out there). Negative splits are probably the safer approach, and if you are going for career average, the way to go, but if you want to obtain that magical best number possible, a small positive is the way to go for nearly everybody.
^^^^^
This is just priceless:
I believe if you looked at a very large sample of nonelite runners, you would find that the best results came from positive splits (and I assume that research is out there).
Seriously, just seriously, why would I care about "very large sample of nonelite runners" when I prepare for and execute my own specific marathon race? This is argument is so flawed for me that I am not even going to discuss it in depth... Btw, according to that same statistics, only 2% of runners on average ( at least in my age group) can run faster than 3 hours. I know I am non elite - I am freaking slow, I know - but at the same time I am also faster than 98% of all the runners, so, why would I care what their "problem" is
Negative splits are probably the safer approach, and if you are going for career average, the way to go..
My goodness man, how old are you? No offense, but you sound like a teenager How many marathons did you run? Firstly, when I / we speak about negative split, we are not talking about 1:32 and 1:26 splits (that's btw is not a very safe approach) - we might be talking one minute or less negative split. But, I was actually not talking about negative split at all - I was talking about even pacing (but not even effort - because marathons are freaking hard!) and you usually will get a slight positive split - but not because you planned it - but because the marathons are freaking hard!
but if you want to obtain that magical best number possible
My man, you are here for a big surprise - there is no magic in running - just be genetically gifted and train hard It's all about mitochondria!
a small positive is the way to go for nearly everybody.
Something we finally agreed upon (peace - V) - but for totally different reasons See response to second paragraph.
JMac - too early to be worried about - that thing that suddenly popped up can disappear the same sudden way too. I would just try to be very cautious from now on. But in the long team I would try to change things in training - if these things cannot show up "suddenly" every time - there should be something that causes that. I know it's a bunch of words and easy to say but it's the best you can get at this point, I think.