A Thread for Runners - 2016 Yearly Challenge - Most Miles

[ntslash]

That actually sounds pretty sweet, I think something like that would be a lot of fun.

 

Got an injury question: Been training for a half for 11 weeks now, it's next Sunday. Everything has been going really well and then last night during a 5 mile run my Achilles started hurting me out of no where. My long run last weekend was 11 miles and I was planning on scaling it down to 8 or 9 this weekend and then some short runs next week leading up to the race. The Achilles is definitely still bothering me so I'm skipping my run today, will ice it today and tomorrow and then Saturday is my long run. I'm trying to figure out if I should still try to do 9 miles or if I should just run something short and easy to prevent it from getting worse. I've already run 11 miles and 10 miles twice so I feel comfortable with the distance, but I don't know what to do at this point. Any thoughts/suggestions?

Rest. You can't lose any fitness in a week. Before my first half, I trained through injury the last few weeks and ended up way off my goal time because I was limping through the damn race.

[ntslash]

 

Also - I signed up for a 400m race in a few weeks. I am typically a distance type guy.

 

Any tips? I'm gonna try and throw interval 400 runs once or twice a week until then. Anything else?

Since the race is only a few weeks away, I wouldn't change your training too much. When I coached track, distance runners could often beat most of the sprinters in the 400 anyway. Of course, we were incorporating some speed into our workouts, but nothing even close to a sprint. End a couple of your runs each week with 4-6 x 100 at 85-90% effort. If you want to train more specifically, the best workouts for 400 runners are 250s at goal 400 pace or 500s just a little slower. If you want more specifics, hit me up and I'll give you some workout suggestions. I wouldn't do any 400s as prep for the 400 though.

For the actual race, run the first 100 hard but not all out, float the second 100 (meaning relax your body while keeping a fast rhythm) then push as fast as you can the last 200. The human body can only hold top speed for about 220 meters, so be careful out there!

[RowBearToe]

awesome, thanks guys! I was definitely worrying about it and you've eased my mind. I'll play it smart and hopefully it's feeling better in a couple days.

[jerseydave77]

I took of again last night since I'm sore in the hip. I'll get loose tonight and tomorrow with short 5k runs leading into the half Sunday. Heeding my own advice.

[jerseydave77]

New Personal Best Half Marathon!

 

NJ Half Marathon: 1:40:40

 

I couldn't find a final kick in the last two miles to get me below 1:40 - still a best for me by three minutes so no complaints. 

 

I studied up on strategy a bit. Four weeks ago in Philly I logged in at 13.32 in the course of the race. Today in NJ I logged 13.18. I cut my turns much cleaner, seeded myself better, simply put I ran a better race. 

[ntslash]

Congrats! That's fantastic improvement.

[JessRD]

New Personal Best Half Marathon!

NJ Half Marathon: 1:40:40

I couldn't find a final kick in the last two miles to get me below 1:40 - still a best for me by three minutes so no complaints.

I studied up on strategy a bit. Four weeks ago in Philly I logged in at 13.32 in the course of the race. Today in NJ I logged 13.18. I cut my turns much cleaner, seeded myself better, simply put I ran a better race.

Wow, awesome! Congrats!

[RowBearToe]

New Personal Best Half Marathon!

 

NJ Half Marathon: 1:40:40

 

I couldn't find a final kick in the last two miles to get me below 1:40 - still a best for me by three minutes so no complaints. 

 

I studied up on strategy a bit. Four weeks ago in Philly I logged in at 13.32 in the course of the race. Today in NJ I logged 13.18. I cut my turns much cleaner, seeded myself better, simply put I ran a better race.

Wow that's awesome man, Congrats!

Care to share what you read on strategy? Have any links? I'm interested in looking at that for my half next weekend.

[jerseydave77]

Rho - it's mostly about pacing and understanding how to handle turns so that you are running the shortest distance you can. I'll find links. When you visualize the road in those terms you save distance and time. It's such common sense but until I looked at some diagrams I hadn't thought in those terms. 

[RowBearToe]

Rho - it's mostly about pacing and understanding how to handle turns so that you are running the shortest distance you can. I'll find links. When you visualize the road in those terms you save distance and time. It's such common sense but until I looked at some diagrams I hadn't thought in those terms. 

 

Yeah, both of the halfs I've run have been in the 13.30's. I never really thought about being mindful of that until now, but it makes a lot of sense.

[ntslash]

Rho - it's mostly about pacing and understanding how to handle turns so that you are running the shortest distance you can. I'll find links. When you visualize the road in those terms you save distance and time. It's such common sense but until I looked at some diagrams I hadn't thought in those terms.

It sounds like common sense, but most people don't seem to know to do it. I spent many hours with my cross country runners (and even my track kids) going over how to run the shortest race. Find the tangents, run point to point, don't run in lane 2 on the curves!

[jerseydave77]

^^^

Yup. Shaved .14 miles out of my race. That is a full minute of time and by mile 11 you'll be glad you didn't take that extra distance. Good links to come.

[gmoney]

Since the race is only a few weeks away, I wouldn't change your training too much. When I coached track, distance runners could often beat most of the sprinters in the 400 anyway. Of course, we were incorporating some speed into our workouts, but nothing even close to a sprint. End a couple of your runs each week with 4-6 x 100 at 85-90% effort. If you want to train more specifically, the best workouts for 400 runners are 250s at goal 400 pace or 500s just a little slower. If you want more specifics, hit me up and I'll give you some workout suggestions. I wouldn't do any 400s as prep for the 400 though.

For the actual race, run the first 100 hard but not all out, float the second 100 (meaning relax your body while keeping a fast rhythm) then push as fast as you can the last 200. The human body can only hold top speed for about 220 meters, so be careful out there!

 

This is really awesome advice. Thanks. Will take this to heart.

 

 

New Personal Best Half Marathon!

 

NJ Half Marathon: 1:40:40

 

I couldn't find a final kick in the last two miles to get me below 1:40 - still a best for me by three minutes so no complaints. 

 

I studied up on strategy a bit. Four weeks ago in Philly I logged in at 13.32 in the course of the race. Today in NJ I logged 13.18. I cut my turns much cleaner, seeded myself better, simply put I ran a better race. 

 

You're awesome Dave and that's an awesome time. Congrats.

[jerseydave77]

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2009/03/racing-line-understanding-how-courses.html

 

This is a great explanation, easy to understand and with some photos. This alone will get you in the right frame of mind. Ray is a great guy at explaining all things tech and metrics. 

 

Have you figured out what your goals are for the race? What do you anticipate being your average? Figuring out where to put yourself in the chute to start the race will save you some stress. Learned this one the hard way. 

[One Hundred Fifty-Two]

I started my marathon prep this weekend with a 10k charity run. It was crowded and cold and raining but I still reached my goal of finishing under an hour. I hardly run November to April. But it's time to focus on training now. I'll probably cap myself at 6 miles until June 1st when I start build ups.

My knee had been really tight and it was hard to fully bend but I focused on stretching and riding the bike and I have full mobility and no pain which is a great way to start off the year.

[One Hundred Fifty-Two]

I got a 4:03 last year and my goal again is under 4, but I don't think 3:45 is unattainable. I can probably reach it by maintaining a similar pace maybe just 5 seconds per mile faster and minimizing walking.

[RowBearToe]

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2009/03/racing-line-understanding-how-courses.html

 

This is a great explanation, easy to understand and with some photos. This alone will get you in the right frame of mind. Ray is a great guy at explaining all things tech and metrics. 

 

Have you figured out what your goals are for the race? What do you anticipate being your average? Figuring out where to put yourself in the chute to start the race will save you some stress. Learned this one the hard way. 

 

Awesome, thanks! The course I'm running has crazy amounts of turns but I'm definitely going to keep this in mind when driving the course Saturday (and obviously when running it on Sunday too haha)

[ntslash]

Sub 22 on a 5k is nothing to sneeze at for us amateurs. I watch these people breeze through at 16 minutes and they make it look easy. I find those of us that still have to work our asses off to be more impressive. Ha ha. 

 

This is actually a really interesting point of view and probably not too far off. There are a couple ways to look at it.

 

First, if we assume that our 22-minute runner and 16-minute runner are both running their 100% effort for a 5k, then the 22-minute runner would seem to be working harder. After all, he/she is doing it for 22 minutes as opposed to only 16 minutes. The human body doesn't know what a 5k is. The human body knows time/duration. So while both bodies ran 5000 meters, one body ran for 16 minutes while the other did it for 6 more minutes. Our slower runner was actually working for 37.5% more time than our faster runner. 

 

However, this breaks down a little when we consider that we can only hold our best speeds for a certain duration of time, not a certain distance. For example, the human body can hold absolute top speed for somewhere between 18 and 20 seconds. After that, the body will slow down. The fastest runners in the world are the only ones who can legitimately sprint for 200 meters. Everyone else is just running a very fast pace for 200 meters (very close to that top end speed, depending how long it takes). The same is true over any distance and time (we just get further and further from that top speed) Now, if I can run a 5k in 16 minutes and that's my absolute best effort, then I can't possibly also hold that pace for 22 minutes. Along the same vein, the 22-minute 5k guy could run at a faster pace if he were running for just 16 minutes. If both runners ran at their maximum capacity for 16 minutes, then they would arguably be doing the same amount of work. 100% capacity for the same period of time. But when both runners are at the 16-minute point of a 5k (one is finished and one has about 3/4ths of a mile to go), the 16-minute 5k runners has done a lot more work (running faster and covering more miles). 

 

Now, some people argue that it takes the human body the same amount of work to cover a mile regardless of pace. In a calorie burning sense, this might be true--up to a point. A 4-minute mile is going to burn more calories than if the same person were slogging along at 20-minute mile pace. But, there are other factors to account for as well, including weight, body efficiency, age, etc. 

 

So, let's go back to our 16-minute and 22-minute 5k runners. When the 16-minute guy crosses the line, he has done more work at that point. Once the 22-minute guy crosses the line, he has probably done about the same amount of work, assuming the two runners are working at maximum pace for that given distance. Yes, the 22-minute guy ran longer, but the 16-minute guy ran at a higher capacity (not because his time was faster, but because he was able to maintain a speed closer to his maximum speed). Naturally, this all depends on the assumption that these runners are truly at maximum capacity over a given distance. 

 

Here's my conclusion: everyone's absolute best 5k is equally impressive. Of course, who's to say which runners are performing at their absolute best and which ones aren't. 

 

Is anyone still reading?

[RowBearToe]

Yup, I read it all haha and I agree with you. I think this sums it up pretty well "everyone's absolute best 5k is equally impressive"

 

Also, 3 people in the April challenge topped 100 miles, that's ridiculous haha you guys are awesome!

 

Congrats on winning the challenge Nathan!

 

Now, everyone get out there and join the May challenge of fastest 5k! (Nathan has already set the bar pretty damn high...haha)

 

https://www.endomondo.com/challenges/21097340

[BuzzersonKillwell]

We need to bracket this shit! I don't think I can win, but maybe I can win most improved.

[McCandless]

Can I get the pity award? Like at school sports day where everyone gets a trophy, no matter how bad you are.

[jerseydave77]

NTSlash -

 

I think my point about the runners is that those with impressive speed tend to be more experienced. They grew up running, ran track, have logged thousands of training miles across their lives. Maybe I put it inelegantly but in the case of Grant and myself - we are newer to running. Believe it or not I had never run a continuous mile until 2.5 years ago. My first 5k was an impressive 28 minutes. So when I talk about those at the front of the pack I look at them as lifelong runners and those that have had some instruction of form. Those of us reading books and taking it up later in life I find the effort of shaving 10 seconds off a mile to be a very impressive fete. Yes, effort across a 5k is equal assuming all are putting forth their best effort in that race - the road to getting there however is not. I take nothing away from naturally talented or lifelong runners but with three knee surgeries, two degenerated discs in my back and an ankle that had a significant tear - I've had a lot of barriers to getting where I am these past 2.5 years. If you had told me three years ago that I'd be hooked on distance running I'd have told you that my body was cooked and laughed. I think my favorite part of the hobby is the effort I've had to put in to get here. 

 

That is rambling, I hope it makes a bit more sense as to the intention of my statement. When I wrote that I'd just finished 9th out of 200 at a little local 5k. The winner was the middle school track coach who looked like he barely broke a sweat. My sub-22 felt damn good but he certainly made it all look very easy where I had to dig. I can say with certainty that his experience makes it easier. 

[ntslash]

Yup, I read it all haha and I agree with you. I think this sums it up pretty well "everyone's absolute best 5k is equally impressive"

Also, 3 people in the April challenge topped 100 miles, that's ridiculous haha you guys are awesome!

Congrats on winning the challenge Nathan!

Now, everyone get out there and join the May challenge of fastest 5k! (Nathan has already set the bar pretty damn high...haha)

https://www.endomondo.com/challenges/21097340

Awesome job to everyone on the April challenge. Honestly, this was the motivation I needed to get out and run more, which I've wanted to do for a while. It had nothing to do with wanting to win a challenge. It was more just about tracking things, seeing what I was doing, and knowing I wasn't alone. It has been years since I logged anything.

In terms of the 5k challenge, should it be within the context of a race? Or just any 5k from a run? I also like the idea of somehow seeding or handicapping it.

Also, a question about edmondo. It seems to just take the average pace of the run to calculate best mile and what not. But what if I don't run at an even pace on some runs? The other day I ran 20 minutes hard and then jogged for 35 minutes. I ended up just entering it as two separate runs.

[jerseydave77]

Pretty sure you can link it to upload GPS Watch data. 

[RowBearToe]

Awesome job to everyone on the April challenge. Honestly, this was the motivation I needed to get out and run more, which I've wanted to do for a while. It had nothing to do with wanting to win a challenge. It was more just about tracking things, seeing what I was doing, and knowing I wasn't alone. It has been years since I logged anything.

In terms of the 5k challenge, should it be within the context of a race? Or just any 5k from a run? I also like the idea of somehow seeding or handicapping it.

Also, a question about edmondo. It seems to just take the average pace of the run to calculate best mile and what not. But what if I don't run at an even pace on some runs? The other day I ran 20 minutes hard and then jogged for 35 minutes. I ended up just entering it as two separate runs.

 

The challenge is any run, not just a race. I plan on just trying to run some fast 5k's and see how I can do outside of a race.

 

As for the endomondo question I'm not sure what you mean? When I run it gives me the average pace, but it also breaks down the run each mile (or down to the half mile if you want) and shows you your time and pace. So you should have seen a drop off in the pace of the laps when you stopped running hard.