Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Pace relationship between distances
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
What I would like to know is if you have a strong aerobic base (unlike the first runner), what has he got?
Male aged 42.
5k .....?
10K...44.30 (7.04m/m)an old time cos I don't do 'em
10M...69:10 (6.55m/m) 2004
HM....88:03 (6.43m/m) 2004
M.....3:16:35(7.30m/m)2004
This shows how much of a blinder the half mara was.
It says that I should have another go at a 10K. What's my target time? 6.30m/m?
It also shows that the 10 miler had a bit left in the tank (I was cautious of a muscle pull being mended)
And it infuriatingly says that I have the capacity for a 3:15 Marathon when it's my day.
Main points:
All athletes will have a relationship between their physiological performance capabilities at different distances, but the exact nature of the relationship will vary between athletes. Horwill's 16s rule is a reasonable guide for some - but not for others.
For the small (~12) group of athletes used so far, i have been able to form extremely accurate descriptive / predictive relationships (99% fit) for performances in the range 400m to 10km. The nature of the relationship begins to change at longer distances (e.g. not quite such close fit for 1/2Mar, even less so far Mar), which probably suggests some different factors are influencing performance in these longer events. I'm sure there would be a strong relationship here too, but i haven't researched that.
The individual relationships can be observed to change with the effects of training.
So bottom line:
Strong evidence for 'individual-athlete' relationships between their performances at different distances in the 400m to 10km range.
Any questions / comments?
I find this very useful for coaching. I can tell what condition someone is in for main event from other distance performances, perhaps an underdistance and an overdistance race. I also know how much an athlete might need to improve their over/under distance performances in order to be capable of a target time in main event.
10k 36:19 (5:50)
1/2M 1:19:03 (6:01?)
20m 2:05:14 (6:15)
M 2:50:08 (6:29)
10k is old (Sept 03); I reckon I could get 35:xx now (have done so on a treadmill...)
Looks like my marathon time is soft compared to my half. Two things: 60 mpw is probably not sufficient mileage for marathon training, but okay for half marathons, and I have done lots of half marathons, so I have learnt how to give 100%, whereas in the marathon I still have to learn how to judge the race properly to give my all and get the fastest possible time for my level of conditioning.
Here are mine:
400m - 53 secs
800m - 1.57
1500m - 3.59 ( 4.17 m/m )
5k - 14.57 ( 4.48 m/m )
5miles - 25.06 ( 5.01 m/m )
10k - 32.30 ( cant do the math! )
10 miles - 51.49 ( 5.10 m/m )
What do you think my best distance would be ?
I'm sure we all have clubmates that maybe beat us over 1500m, similar over 5km, but we beat them over 10km. If you try to predict 10km time from 1500m time, it can't be right for both you and your clubmate!
Were you in 53s shape for 400m and 51.53 shape for 10M at the same point in time?
Impressive if that's the case!
If so, the other pbs between are all a bit slow.
Did your research cover running form? I was just wondering that perhaps running fast (at 5k & 10k or less) simply trains you to run much more efficiently which you can utilise at HM and marathon distances?
Good luck with your publications.
Its very difficult to tease out the fundamental factors that contribute to running performance. This is shown clearly by the classic studies trying to correlate physiological measures (e.g. VO2max) with performance - not that close a fit (r~.7).
Running performance is an interaction of many factors. In my opinion, for the distance range 400m to 10km at least, i'd suggest that 'steady state' workrate, ability to tolerate higher work rates, and running economy are determining factors. However its not necessary to determine the contributions of individual factors to make a useful and accurate (Rsq ~.99!) model of an athlete's performance capabilities.
I certainly agree that much of the performance gains from running short fast efforts will be due to improved running economy, but this certainly does not devalue those gains.
My model looks at how the athlete's performance changes with race distance rather than trying to correlate individual factors with a single performance.
How does it measure aerobic ability? Well, in the case of this model i prefer to call it simply 'endurance' rather than aerobic ability as its possible that it is not purely a measure of aerobic ability.
The measure of endurance i'm using is simply a measure of the rate of change of speed with increasing race distance (which i believe is more meaningful than simply looking at 10km time).
I found that i was (endurance) training as hard as several other runners but they were running 5km about 1min faster than me. I was trying to understand this. I found my rate of change of speed with distance was just as good as theirs, but i was simply slower at short distances and this difference in speed was persisting in the longer races - thats what sparked my research to begin.
Feel free to email me if you want to discuss in greater detail.
Oh, you were referring to racing, rather than training for 5km and 10km as fast running.
Still think boost to running economy would be a factor, but it'd also be a powerful stimulus for improving steady state pace.
try again
I can take a month off and start back with a 15 mile (slow!!) run.
800m - 1:57.2 (3:55m/m) + 18secs
1500m - 3:52.8 (4:09m/m) +14secs
5000m – 14:14 (4:35m/m) + 26secs (distance step up is x3.3 rather than x2)
10K – 29:34 (4:45m/m) + 10secs
HM – 66:12 (5:03 m/m) +18secs
Marathon – 2:32:50 (5:50m/m) +47secs !
Fairly tight relationship all the way up to HM. Strongest PB of those listed is the 10K.
Softest PB by a mile (or should that be 26.2 miles) is the marathon. However, that is due to never racing one when fit, rather than a lack of aerobic development.
800m - no pb that I will admit to - but i've done a rep in 2:04 last year. (+6s/lap or 24s/mile)
1500m - 4:09.0 (+5s/lap or 20s/mile)
3000m - 8:55.28 (+4s/lap or 16s/mile)
5000m - 15:37.1 (+4s/lap or 16s/mile)
10k - 32:08 road (+2s/lap or 8s/mile)
10M 53:00
1/2Mar - 71:08 (+18s/mile over 10k time)
Mar: 2:33:29 (+26s/mile over 10k time) soft
Personally I think my 10k, 10M and HM times are where they should be, and the rest are a bit soft. The 800m time certainly needs attention - I must be able to run 2:02 or there abouts come august if I ease off the miles a bit.
The marathon time will come down in the future hopefully. I'm still learning the event and my average milage during the build up was only something like 70, so theres still a lot more to come there I hope!
TT -are you sure you were aerobically developed? Not skimping on the mileage were you?:)
3000m 10:43 (5.42 m/m or 85.7s/lap)
5k 19:23 (6.14 m/m)
10K 38:59 (6.16 m/m)
1/2M 87:14 (6.39 m/m)
My 1500 and 3k follow 16sec rule reasonably closely (only 4secs out) but then again I think I was in better shape when I ran my 1500.
My 5K was run after nearly a year off injured and then my 10K about 6 months later so not surprising the 10K is a lot better.
Half marathon is not quite as good as 10K but I have had more practise at 10Ks and I think I pace them better than half marathons.
What is very odd is that my 1500m time would give me 6.06 pace for 10K and I would definitely have said that I am better at 10K than 1500m.
Here we go then...
Male aged 42.
5k .....?
10K...40.03 (6:27m/m) - now that's better
10M...69:10 (6.55m/m) 2004
HM....88:03 (6.43m/m) 2004
M.....3:16:35(7.30m/m)2004
This shows how much of a blinder the half mara was.
Previous results showed that I should have another go at a 10K. What was my target time? 6.30m/m? Gotcha.
It also shows that the 10 miler had a bit left in the tank (I was cautious of a muscle pull being mended)
And it infuriatingly says that I have the capacity for a 3:15 Marathon when it's my day.
Can I have some comparisons from others from the "daily" thread?
10k - 38:48 (6:15 m/m)
HM - 1:31:20 (6:58 m/m)
M - 3:21:0 (7:40 m/m)
This iquite depressing really, nowhere near the 16 second rule.
I do between 40 and 50 miles a week, usually consisting of a ~22 mile long run. At the end of a M I never have anything left in the tank...
Rest of the week is made of up speed work (currently doing 1600m reps with 400 m rec), a tempo run (10k fast, usually around 40 mins) and a semi long run of 9 to 12 miles at HM pace.. What should I change/do extra ? I am so far away from this 16 minute rule..
That 1/2M is pretty bad compared to the 10km. Was it definately a well-paced 100% effort? And did you do it at a time when you were still in 38:48 shape for 10km.
Also, are you very quick over 400, 800, 1500.
Your times read like a 400/800 club runner trying to do long distance - but from your training this seems unlikely. If this isn't the case then there must be some other reason.
Speaking for myself, I am a different runner at cross-country, and all my times are relatively poor in comparison with my X-C running. By way of example, in the Middx and Southerns this year I finished 1 sec and 5 secs behind a guy from my club who would run 1500 the best part of a minute quicker than me if we set foot on a track today.
Anyway:
5K: 16.48 [5/04]
5M: 27.55 [3/04]
10K: 34.36 [4/04]
1/2M: 79.49 [2/04]
But no 10K run on an easy course [PB course included section on rocky paths].
I thought my 1/2M was bad and this has just confirmed it. To be honest every 1/2M I have done has always been part of a normal training week and even that BP was achieved with a bit of hang over and starting too far back in the field (Bristol last year :-().
I am def not a 400m/800m runner at all...
I have just increased my reps from 800m to 1600m in an effort to try and build more endurance type speed work instead of the shorter stuff..
Am thinking that I need to get my tempo run up to 10-12 miles. I definitely feel a lot different when running at "tempo" pace when compared to HM pace.. Maybe I am just taking it too easy....