5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2009-09-15 8:11 AM |
Expert 1118 , North Carolina | Subject: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace I'm curious what ya'lls differences are in your pace in relation to the length of your run? I think I'm becoming a lazy runner and getting slower; or maybe I just don't know what to expect as distance increases. I just bought a forerunner so I need to start making sure I'm in the proper heart rate zone so I'll know if I'm pushing hard enough. My first 10K is coming up and I can make the distance, but I can't seem to find a good 10K pace. I guess the bottom line is that I won't know my proper pace until I know if I'm in the proper heart rate zone. |
|
2009-09-15 8:19 AM in reply to: #2406793 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace If you know your pace/time for one distance, McMillan can help you estimate what would be the equivalent pace for another, regardless of "proper heart rate zone": http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm Edited by the bear 2009-09-15 8:31 AM |
2009-09-15 8:38 AM in reply to: #2406793 |
Elite 3683 Whispering Pines, North Carolina | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace If you're going to be running according to HR, then you are probably going to want to stay in Z2 for a good portion of your runs. There are a few threads on how to do a LT test (which is quite uncomfortable) to determine your training zones. Edited by tri_d00d 2009-09-15 8:54 AM |
2009-09-15 8:40 AM in reply to: #2406793 |
Elite 3315 Miami | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace http://www.runbayou.com/jackd.htm good calc for you, although the one that bear posted is very good also. |
2009-09-15 9:57 AM in reply to: #2406793 |
Expert 1049 Burnaby, BC | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace The Bear posted the best resource, but a rule of thumb if you're not around a computer is that when you double the distance, you double the time and add 10%. |
2009-09-15 9:59 AM in reply to: #2406793 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace maria40nc - 2009-09-15 9:11 AM I guess the bottom line is that I won't know my proper pace until I know if I'm in the proper heart rate zone dump the HRM monitor in a race and just go as hard as I can maintain for that distance.
|
|
2009-09-15 10:59 AM in reply to: #2407097 |
Expert 721 Chenequa WI | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Daremo - 2009-09-15 9:59 AM maria40nc - 2009-09-15 9:11 AM I guess the bottom line is that I won't know my proper pace until I know if I'm in the proper heart rate zone dump the HRM monitor in a race and just go as hard as I can maintain for that distance.
(Sigh) So true. |
2009-09-15 11:52 AM in reply to: #2407097 |
Pro 4054 yep, | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Daremo - 2009-09-15 10:59 AM maria40nc - 2009-09-15 9:11 AM I guess the bottom line is that I won't know my proper pace until I know if I'm in the proper heart rate zone dump the HRM monitor in a race and just go as hard as I can maintain for that distance.
Thats a pretty good point. I consider myself average for the run portions of a 5k or 10k of a tri (24mins 5k; 54ish for 10k) So those paces are usually above LT for me. Now going longer is all about pacing yourself and being able to run that pace consistently for the whole duration of the race.
Good luck with your training and keep us posted on your results. |
2009-09-15 12:01 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Expert 1123 Columbus | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace the aforementioned pace calculators are great for predicting your times IF you are putting in the training. If I enter my mile time or even my 5k time I should be doing a sub 3 hour marathon. My best marathon is 20 minutes off that mark. So, remember those predictions calculate times based on the idea you have trained equally for each distance. Also the closer the distances the more accurate the prediction. eg using my mile time to predict a marathon time is just not a good benchmark. Using a 10k to predict a half marathon is a pretty good estimate. |
2009-09-15 1:28 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Expert 1118 , North Carolina | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Bear and Trix - Thanks for the great websites and calculators! And Bear, I love your avi. It makes me smile every time I see it. Ron - Yes, I've read about those test. I've not worked much with HR yet other than to check it according to the standard tables and then say, "hmmmm, ok." |
2009-09-15 2:59 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Elite 3088 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Ignore the HRM for now and do the 10k. Run hard. If you feel pretty close to puking for the last couple of miles, then you're pacing it about right. At mile 2, hit the lap button on your HRM so you get an average over the last 4.2 miles. The average over the last 4 miles will be pretty close to your LT. If you were really in pain and digging deep, your LT will be a few beats lower than that average. Use THAT to establish your training zones going forward and use the 10k time in the McMillan calculator to determine pacing efforts in other distances. Edited by dgunthert 2009-09-15 2:59 PM |
|
2009-09-15 3:39 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Pro 5169 Burbs | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace to give you an idea of mine... 5K: 7:27/ mi 10K: 7:39/ mi HM: 8:10/ mi .... these are different, though, in tris I would just go with a pace that feels comfortably hard for each distance. |
2009-09-15 3:41 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace I think you should run faster with each longer distance. You don't want to be out there forever you know. |
2009-09-15 3:54 PM in reply to: #2407994 |
Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace trishie - 2009-09-15 1:39 PM to give you an idea of mine... 5K: 7:27/ mi 10K: 7:39/ mi HM: 8:10/ mi .... these are different, though, in tris I would just go with a pace that feels comfortably hard for each distance. And mine: 5K: 6:24/mi 10K: 6:59/mi HM: 7:20/mi Haven't done a 10K in 11 months, though...I suspect I'd be at closer to 6:55/mi now. Anyhow, if you look at my times and trishie's, you'll see a general progression there that's probably pretty typical. (The "double the time and add 10%" thing works fairly well with my times for those distances, as it happens.) In terms of pacing, as has been said already, most of it is mental, esp. for 5K and 10K...they hurt and it's been my experience that a lot of runners stop short of pushing past a certain level of discomfort for a sustained run. Edited by tcovert 2009-09-15 3:56 PM |
2009-09-15 9:10 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Master 2426 Central Indiana | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace As a new (and middle-aged) runner this year I find some of those pace calculators to be way off at longer distances. I can run 7min mi, and my PB 5k is 24min (very close to 24:15 predicted). HOWEVER- my best 10k is 57min (50:23 pred), and best 13.1 is 2:14 (1:52 pred). I freely admit I am not a well-conditioned runner, but my mile time has come down MUCH faster than my time for longer distances. I have delusions of doing 1st mary this Fall, but will likely opt for half (since I know I can do that). I could see myself surviving 26mi, but not at sub-4h pace predicted. Edited by Oldteen 2009-09-15 9:13 PM |
2009-09-15 9:57 PM in reply to: #2408673 |
Elite 3088 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Oldteen - 2009-09-15 9:10 PM As a new (and middle-aged) runner this year I find some of those pace calculators to be way off at longer distances. I can run 7min mi, and my PB 5k is 24min (very close to 24:15 predicted). HOWEVER- my best 10k is 57min (50:23 pred), and best 13.1 is 2:14 (1:52 pred). I freely admit I am not a well-conditioned runner, but my mile time has come down MUCH faster than my time for longer distances. I have delusions of doing 1st mary this Fall, but will likely opt for half (since I know I can do that). I could see myself surviving 26mi, but not at sub-4h pace predicted. I think most of the folks posting in this thread wouldn't find that unusual at all. The McMillan calculator assumes the significant base of fitness it takes to maintain those paces over those longer distances. Give it another year or so of solid training and you're likely to find the calcs much more accurate. ETA: I'm 41 and find it to be pretty spot on. Like you, 3 or 4 years ago when I was still relatively new to training, I would have thought it insane that I could run the 3:35 marathon it predicted, despite having run a 46:00 10k. Last year, though, I did 3:32 and believe I can shave several more minutes off. Edited by dgunthert 2009-09-15 10:02 PM |
|
2009-09-16 7:23 AM in reply to: #2407899 |
Expert 1118 , North Carolina | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace dgunthert - 2009-09-15 3:59 PM Ignore the HRM for now and do the 10k. Run hard. If you feel pretty close to puking for the last couple of miles, then you're pacing it about right. At mile 2, hit the lap button on your HRM so you get an average over the last 4.2 miles. The average over the last 4 miles will be pretty close to your LT. If you were really in pain and digging deep, your LT will be a few beats lower than that average. Use THAT to establish your training zones going forward and use the 10k time in the McMillan calculator to determine pacing efforts in other distances. I like this advice.... will do it! In terms of pacing, as has been said already, most of it is mental, esp. for 5K and 10K...they hurt and it's been my experience that a lot of runners stop short of pushing past a certain level of discomfort for a sustained run. Yep... that would be me; always staying in a comfort zone. But THAT is about to change! Oldteen - 2009-09-15 10:10 PM As a new (and middle-aged) runner... I have delusions of doing 1st mary this Fall, but will likely opt for half (since I know I can do that). I could see myself surviving 26mi, but not at sub-4h pace predicted. LOL, I hear ya! I'm a new and middle-aged runner too (43 yr old). I graduated Couch to 5K in March. I had similar delusions to do a full mary by spring, but decided to wait until next fall. I have my first half mary this Dec. Well, the interesting thing is that my first three 5Ks following the Couch to 5K program finished with very similar times. I have a 5K scheduled for the day after my 10K. The 10K is at NC State where my son goes to school, so I really wanted to do that one. Then I found the Monster Dash 5K is the day after and it's a 5K in a Holloween costume! I could not resist the fun silliness of it. As I was pondering what kind of costume I could run fast in, it hit me.... a cheetah! So I'll put on cheetah ears and a cheetah tail and a cheetah print shirt with running shorts; then I'll run like a cheetah!!! Anyway, it will be interesting to compare the 10K results to the next day 5K results compared to what I ran earlier in the year. This is all really great advice and helps me menatally prepare to get out of the comfort zone and push harder! Edited by maria40nc 2009-09-16 7:24 AM |
2009-09-16 9:21 AM in reply to: #2406816 |
Regular 73 | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace the bear - 2009-09-15 9:19 AM If you know your pace/time for one distance, McMillan can help you estimate what would be the equivalent pace for another, regardless of "proper heart rate zone": http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm That is a pretty cool calculator that I have never seen before. And its times are pretty close for my 5k, 10k, and 13.1. I also like the suggested paces for different workouts. Thanks for sharing |
2009-09-16 1:10 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Master 2460 | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace A tip for folks new to the calculators (like Mcmillan) - they are excellent resources but there is a BIG caveat: |
2009-09-16 1:37 PM in reply to: #2409854 |
Elite 3088 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace I agree with the point about adequately training for the distance in order to even come close to the McMillan calc. The calc doesn't tell you what you're in shape to run, just an approximation of what you're capable of running after equivalent training. However, I can't agree with the 70 miles per week statement at all. I used my lifetime PR for 10k in the calc and came in under the marathon prediction after training 35-40 mpw. I used the "advanced" version of Runner's World's "Ultimate Marathon Training Plan." Even if I had done the easy Saturday runs instead of long rides, the average would have been in the 40s. There isn't a single week in the plan that calls for more than mid to upper 50s. |
2009-09-16 1:42 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace If you are incorporating cross training (i.e. cycling and swimming twice per week) in addition to running 4 days per week there is no need to run 70mpw unless you are a glutton for punishment. |
|
2009-09-16 1:43 PM in reply to: #2409916 |
Cycling Guru 15134 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Rocket Man - 2009-09-16 2:42 PM If you are incorporating cross training (i.e. cycling and swimming twice per week) in addition to running 4 days per week there is no need to run 70mpw unless you are a glutton for punishment. Or you want to train like a runner ........... |
2009-09-16 1:47 PM in reply to: #2406793 |
Pro 3883 Woodstock,GA | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace Aerobic capacity is aerobic capacity no matter how you build it. Just because you aren't pouding your joints 7 days a week doesn't mean you aren't building the same aerobic capacity in the pool or on the bike. |
2009-09-16 2:15 PM in reply to: #2409854 |
Coach 10487 Boston, MA | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace agarose2000 - 2009-09-16 1:10 PM A tip for folks new to the calculators (like Mcmillan) - they are excellent resources but there is a BIG caveat: I think the caveat is: you should do the adequate training load based on your specific physiological needs in order to realize the potential suggested by calculators like Daniels or McMillan. Some athletes adapt faster to muscle fiber fatigue resistance hence they find it 'easier' to develop speed on longer distances (i.e. marathon) but struggle to run porportionally as fast(er) on shorter distances. OTOH some athletes adapt faster to pace @ maximum lactate steady state hence their speed during evens of 1 hr or shorter is very good but struggle to get close to their potential on longer distances (they fell of their speed curve). The point is; an athlete with better muscle fiber fatigue resistance might benefit much more be focusing more on improving his mlss and/or VO2max while an athlete with great pace @ mlss but poor muscle fiber fatigue resistance should focus more on volume at lower intensities. The total training load (volume + intensity) will be different for every athlete. Yes in general it is safe to assume untrained individuals will benefit from any training and since volume is the most popular approach suggested it is how many newcomers train and certainly improve, still that doesn't automatically mean they are indeed doing the optimal training given their physiological needs. That's why IMO it is hard to suggest what kind of mileage is necessary for an athlete to come close to the potential suggested by performance estimators; some might do so with lower load while others might require months/years of consistent training load. |
2009-09-16 2:19 PM in reply to: #2410013 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: 5K pace vs 10K pace vs HM pace JorgeM - 2009-09-16 2:15 PM agarose2000 - 2009-09-16 1:10 PM A tip for folks new to the calculators (like Mcmillan) - they are excellent resources but there is a BIG caveat: I think the caveat is: you should do the adequate training load based on your specific physiological needs in order to realize the potential suggested by calculators like Daniels or McMillan. Some athletes adapt faster to muscle fiber fatigue resistance hence they find it 'easier' to develop speed on longer distances (i.e. marathon) but struggle to run porportionally as fast(er) on shorter distances. OTOH some athletes adapt faster to pace @ maximum lactate steady state hence their speed during evens of 1 hr or shorter is very good but struggle to get close to their potential on longer distances (they fell of their speed curve). The point is; an athlete with better muscle fiber fatigue resistance might benefit much more be focusing more on improving his mlss and/or VO2max while an athlete with great pace @ mlss but poor muscle fiber fatigue resistance should focus more on volume at lower intensities. The total training load (volume + intensity) will be different for every athlete. Yes in general it is safe to assume untrained individuals will benefit from any training and since volume is the most popular approach suggested it is how many newcomers train and certainly improve, still that doesn't automatically mean they are indeed doing the optimal training given their physiological needs. That's why IMO it is hard to suggest what kind of mileage is necessary for an athlete to come close to the potential suggested by performance estimators; some might do so with lower load while others might require months/years of consistent training load. Heh heh Jorge typed "load" heh heh. |
|