DFW Running Club!!

hypno06

but I'm doing the same in my training - my first two miles are stupid fast (for me, anyway) then I am a minute a mile slower for the rest of it as my legs give in, with the odd fluke fast mile in between!

chickadee

That's interesting Hypno. I can't run fast when I first start out. I need a mile or two to get warmed up first. In fact I find the first 15 minutes or so an effort until I get warmed up, then it feels more fluid and I can go faster. If it isn't just a race thing, I suppose you'll have to make a conscious effort NOT to do it for the first part of your run, then you'll have a more balanced comfortable run. It is difficult to slow yourself down though.

RichOneday_2

Hypno, pacing is always a fascinating subject.

The 'correct' pace is dictated by how the lungs, legs, rhythm feel at different stages of a race and takes some time to learn.

But, all other things being equal, a flat race should have a slower start than finish, although only slightly, as you quite rightly indicate.

Since the starts don't feel too fast to you it suggests that the legs and lungs are quite happy with the 'set off' pace.

I would say that you dont really have a problem with setting off too fast, more a need for more strength to maintain the pace and push on in the later stages. Training is always about a balance between developing strength and developing speed and your predicament suggests your speed training is ahead of your strength training.

Which is good news because that means that just by doing more LSD, ie low effort distance runs, you should be able to run a 10K at 9 min miling or 55 mins.

I hope that makes some sort of sense!:D

hypno06

so, it is a bit like when I first started running, at my 12 min mile pace - I built up from 1.5 miles, to 2 miles, then bit more by bit more.....

Now I can do 2 miles at 9min-9.30 pace, so it is reasonable for me to extend that to 3 miles at the same pace then 4 etc?

At the same time, if my long Sunday runs are ploddy 11 min milers it should all balance out together in the long run, meaning that I can plod happily round the marathon but at the same time being able to run a faster 10k or even a half marathon?

Or am I completely off track :rotfl:

The other thing is, should I not bother with my stopwatch for my regular 4-6 mile midweek runs - would it be better just to concentrate on the fact that I have been for a run, rather than get obsessive about how long it takes me......then perhaps time my LSR or one 6 miler every couple of weeks or so to judge my progress?

hypno06

Right, went out for a "recovery run" - only managed 2.76 miles as my thighs/buttocks definitely feel the effort from yesterday (well, more from yesterday's killer hill I think!) and I really noticed the camber on the roads today which doesn't normally bother me - so just one loop today.

Anyway, forgetting what I said about leaving my watch behind :rolleyes: I was quite pleased that my times were nicely consistent:

Mile 1 - 9.53
Mile 2 - 9.54
0.76 mile - 7.24

So a consistent average of 9.51 a mile. I know it was only a short run, but at least I didn't crash and burn, and it wasn't lungbusting or anything, just a bit too much effort to carry on

RichOneday_2

Week18
Mon29/12 Rest Day
Tues30/12 3 x 1mile (6:28, 6:26, 6:21) (Avge 6:25) (Pulse 128)
Weds31/12 10K 47:05 (Pulse 122) (7:35/mile) (Pennine 10K Course)
Thurs1/1 14.0 Miles 2:00:36 (Pulse 104) (8:37/mile)
Fri2/1 10K 53:10 (Pulse 90) (8:35/mile)

Hypno, yes you're on the right lines.

To run a controlled, strong 10K, distance runs need to be up in the 12-14 mile range, otherwise your kind of predicament can happen albeit still running decent times.

And once you have the strength, more speed develops and you get into an upward cycle.

Although by making a real conscious effort to go slower than you want to in the early stages, you probably will find your overall times improving.

In terms of timing runs - I time everything and take the pulse for each run as this is invaluable data for steering future training.

However, there is a massive difference between timing runs and running them to time. You run to an appropriate effort level and the time is what it is, note it down and move on. Too much running to time is the most common mistake runners make leading to training all becoming a mediocre sameness!

hypno06

Oh I don't "run to time" but I do plug my garmin in when I get home and see how long each mile took me, although in a race I look as I approach each mile marker.......just out of interest of course!

I am going to have a rest day tomorrow then aim for a bit longer on Sunday - last Sunday I did 7.25 miles so if I can do an extra loop, it will be approaching 10 miles which should be about right I reckon.

RichOneday_2

Sounds good! Although a race is all about running to time, so no problems with keeping a close eye on the time during races.

There are very few sessions (1/2 per week) where any pushing happens, including the distance runs.

The distance runs build capacity to move oxygen about, ie make the engine bigger and the pump stronger, so should be done for that specific purpose and run very steadily.

In other words, 10 miles at 11min/mile is more beneficial than 7 @ 10 min/mile for your purposes.

hypno06

Excellent, thanks Rich - so on Sunday I will be opting for 10 slow miles come hell or high water! 4 times round the block (ish) which isn't too scary, although a bit repetative, but if I did 3 blocks last week, I can surely cope with the extra loop before I get too bored at looking at the same bit of pavement!

One day I will vary it and run it anticlockwise, instead of clockwise.......but I'm not sure I'm ready for that much excitement yet :rotfl:

Alias_Omega

im still around,been away for the week, managed to get out once, but ive caught the dreaded cold, see how i feel today, might hold out for tomorrow morning to put in another 4miler, before returning to work on monday, with a fitness test (beep test) attempt on tuesday afternoon.