Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Is starting too quickly a bad thing?
Dave928
✭✭✭
So, I did my first park run this morning wearing my Garmin 110. I ran these splits:
4:05
4:21
4:21
4:37
4:36
for 22mins in total.
I started a little too close to the front and was swept along probably faster than I should have been, and as you can see I slowed quite a lot around half way.
I just kind of assume this is a bad thing, and that the most efficient race would be at an even pace. What do people think? If I'd conserved a bit of energy for the second half could I have run, say 30 seconds faster?
4:05
4:21
4:21
4:37
4:36
for 22mins in total.
I started a little too close to the front and was swept along probably faster than I should have been, and as you can see I slowed quite a lot around half way.
I just kind of assume this is a bad thing, and that the most efficient race would be at an even pace. What do people think? If I'd conserved a bit of energy for the second half could I have run, say 30 seconds faster?
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Within reason no - especially in a 5k. In a 5k you'll never get it back if you don't go hard for the first mile.
In a 10k or above it can lead to bad things but in a 5k I would recommend going out hard and keeping that going.
Depends what your style of racing is...be it out hard, and holding on, equal pacing or the tricky negative split.
Personally i find that all my pbs come from the first approach...like today, 5.24 for the first mile, and overall a 5.50 average pace for a big pb.
Others favour starting conservatively and upping it later, thinking the boost they get mentally by over taking people.
I find that if i try this method, i just start slipping...whereas if you slip from the too fast pace you have somewhere to go, and have already banked time!
I read an article once that they did some research and the 5k is different to the longer distances..............they compared times of equal pacing and running off fast and trying to hold on and the running off fast came up with the faster times.................
It doesn't work with the longer distances though...........
Two things strike me about pacing.
You should cross the line with nothing more to give. If you start off slowly and then build up it is hard to get to that situation.
If you are ahead of target at half-way then that gives you the motivation to try and hang-on and maybe get a better time. If you are behind target it is not very helpful mentally.
Saying that one of the best races I ever had was when I was five minutes late for a trail/fell race (Guisborough Moors - evening route) and working my way through the field knowing that I was faster than all those immediately in front of me.
_____________________
Recently started blog -
Latest Post(s)
Cheat, cheat, cheat
Marathon results from around Europe
_____________________
Recently started blog -
Latest Post(s)
Cheat, cheat, cheat
Marathon results from around Europe
I guess it depends on which park itself, the 'lay of the land', & whether you can recover after a rapid start.
I've only managed to do 2 (very first 2, I think?) of my local 'Park-Runs' due to work, but (up to press), I'm happy with a 21:20, on 'our' course
Don't let anyone tell you that Pontefract Race-Course is a 'flat-course', just because there's no fences, doesn't make it flat!
I do echo that you should finish with nothing left.
My 5k first mile is always fast which has always worked out ok for a 5K. I do like to "Bank" a bit of time as Stevie G says. It has worked ok in the past 10k & HM distances but I tried to do it at my last (hilly)HM ending with a very disappointing finish time and very very tired legs. I usually manage a strong finish but the video clip of me running up to the finish was a shocker!
I suppose it depends on how fast you start compared to what your average pace should be for the distance, how long you're "too fast" for your level, and how quickly you settle.
At my 5mile,10k, and 10mile pbs set recently, I've done a first mile/km faster than the rest, but have quickly eased closer to the target pace by mile/km 2.
Distance 1st mile/km pace Eventual average pace
5m 5.30 5.37
10k 3.20 (km) 3.32 (km)
10m 5.24 5.50
Also, the shorter the race, obviously the quicker your average pace will be, so you have less scope to "get away" with too fast a start.
The 10mile race was a unique one for me as I actually ran it off a stopwatch rather than GPS for the first time in ages. This meant i didn't keep looking at my watch to "reign myself in", if it looked too fast, which I've often done at other races.
Suprisingly, that 1st mile at the 10miler is quicker than my target 5k pace...that's what can happen if you do a race where the winners run 48mins I guess!
The last race I tried to start the first km at the target pace, I found slowly dropped off as the race goes on.
As some ex running legend said, "whatever speed you start at, eventually you'll slow down. So start fast!"
Doing the first mile fast has always worked out ok for me in the past and I have ran most of my decent times this way. Flat 10K next Sunday which I will doing a faster first mile. I held a pace that I couldnt maintain for 4 hilly miles of a HM last week which is something I wont be doing again!
Also Mike, looking at your splits they're decently consistent; imagine if you'd started with 4:36. Would you then have run any faster than 4:05 on your final kilometre? If it's questionable, then perhaps you had the right strategy after all. If you think you might've gone faster by reversing your bookend kilometres, then maybe it's time to test that strategy out next time around. It's whatever you feel would be best. And nice time, by the way!
Interesting.
But is it a question of balance ? I mean, it`s clearly a bad idea to go off too slowly in a 5 km race because, as lots of people have pointed out, you don`t have much time/distance to make it up. But equally, going out too fast just leads to premature collapse (more realistically, a dramatic dropping off of speed) which doesnt seem very efficient either.
Perhaps the key is to go for something in between - pretty fast from the outset but at a pace you can maintain throughout ?
That would be consistent with my old coach who always got us to aim to do our reps at a consistent pace. He wasn`t too keen on doing mile (1) at 5`10 (or whatever it was) and then mile (2) at 5`20, mile (3) at 5`30 etc. He told us to go for 5 x 5`25.
I have tried to run my 5ks at a consistent pace but it never seems to work. Get a bit over-excited at the start and end up dying in mile 2.
With that said, even splits are always good in a 5k; but if pushed for either positive or negative (with even splits not being an option), I think it depends on the person. I personally would sooner start faster - despite the risk that you might get carried away and implode, it's better to have the option of scaling the pace back mid-race than leave yourself too much to do later. It's all about those margins though...and if Mike can tighten up his outlying splits by another ten seconds or so, I think more options become available in regards to energy management. All a bit complex!
(Thanks for the post also, I enjoy learning more!)