quote:<HR>Originally posted by tuscaloosarunner:
That's a wicked PR man. I think that may be the fastest I've seen on the board, except maybe fredurie or Denton. Were you a middle distance guy or long distance specialist?

Where'd you do the PR--college, post-collegiate, etc?

Yours in admiration,

Tusca<HR>

It was back in college. I also hit sub-15 and very low 15s on the roads after college.

My wife and I then had 3 kids, so the emphasis on the running took a backseat to their activities. The oldest is now in college, and that has freed up some time for me.

On the bright side, I've kept running all these years, mostly around 30-40 miles per week. An average run would be around 6-8 miles, but I would miss a day or two each week due to life.

On the downside, I haven't done much in the way of fast training, such as intervals, tempo, or hills. That may be a good thing as I'll probably see some quick results once I start back up with that stuff.

Agree with Bob and chances for sub-19. Nice run TSG!

On the splits, I'd make a big bet that mile markers were misplaced. Even on courses that are accurrate for overall distance, this happens quite often. I doubt that you ran the 2nd mile that slow or the 3rd one that fast. Take an average of those 2 miles, and you'll have something close to your actual pace on each of them.

Thanks guys!

Bob--sounds like an interesting idea. I've thought about racing without a watch but always chicken out worried I'll miss it. I'm interested to hear about your experience with that.

Jim, that's a very good idea, but I really don't think it's as off as much as you might think. The second mile is notoriously slow since it contains a significant hill. The third mile is fast because it contains the corresponding downhills. I definitely picked it up after I saw that 2 mile split and started passing tons of people over the last 3 miles! By the 2 mile marker I was 11th woman, having been passed by about 4 women after the hills. I ended up coming in 8th place and I was gaining on 7th over the last couple of miles. The 7th place woman was WAY ahead of me as we turned for the last two miles that head straight to the finish. I could see her the whole way and I came from way back and was within 5 seconds of her at the finish. I was hauling those last three miles! All those women ran faster splits for mile 2.

Also, other people I know had more reasonable splits for those two miles--my two mile split was way slow compared to theirs. It should have been about a 6:17-6:22 to account for the hills. I was very concerned about going out too hard and I really think I got carried away! Anyway, I chalk it up to the fact that I am relatively inexperienced with racing, especially shorter races and I'm still learning how to pace. I screwed up, but it's something to learn from for sure! I don't want to think the mile markers were just off when there's a lesson to be learned there!

quote:<HR>Originally posted by thereshegoes:
I should be really close. I ran a 5 miler today in 31:14. The splits show areas that I can improve--such as the second mile!

6:12
6:32!
6:04
6:10
6:16

<HR>

Ah, hills. The "6:32!" lead me to believe that it was something else. On many reports they put "uphill" or "downhill" next to a split when it seems out of line. Also, there was no mention anywhere else in your report about hills. I assumed a flat course with misplaced mile markers, which is usually the case when this happens.

I did my first speed workout yesterday - conservative 1/4 mile intervals with 1/4 mile jogging rests. I ran 12 of them with the first 6 progressively faster and the second 6 progressively slower:

Pace:
First 6 intervals - 6:45, 6:31, 6:26, 6:18, 6:05, 5:49
2nd 6 intervals - 5:50, 6:05, 6:12, 6:22, 6:33, 6:42

Going down the ladder felt pretty tough (especially the two sub-6 intervals back to back) but going back up felt comfortable and I was surprised how easy it was to estimate and hold the correct pace. On the way down I had to check my watch repeatedly and make myself go faster. I think I should try a 5K race to see where I'm really at right now.

That is an interesting ladder. I have heard about distance ladders (i.e. 400 - 600 - 800 - 1000 - 800 - 600 - 400), but not "time ladders." I see the benefit of going progressively faster, but slowing down seems counterproductive. (I am not an expert. This is not meant as criticism; just an observation that may prompt discussion that would provide additional insight).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ken Camet:


Pace:
First 6 intervals - 6:45, 6:31, 6:26, 6:18, 6:05, 5:49
2nd 6 intervals - 5:50, 6:05, 6:12, 6:22, 6:33, 6:42

<HR>

Actually, this was my first 'interval' workout since last October and I was just plain skeered of the major discomfort! Thought I'd ease into it a little.
First time I ever did a session like that but, you know what? I may do it again next week 'cept maybe drop the 6:40's from each end, start at 6:30 and do 4 of the 5:50 quarters in the middle. I tell ya what, it was good to feel 'in control' of the session. It seemed easier to throw in those 2 5:50's knowing my reward was a slower pace next time. I may continue doing this but start progressively faster till I have the bulk of the intervals at 5:50. Since I run most of my mileage (45mpw) at 7:30 to 8:30 pace I gain something even from the lame 6:40 intervals.