Send in the Clowns - BAC 10K Challenge

ronnie085

Cracking race Krusty, all set for London now and the race to the bar

BeepBeep67

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I have a suspicion that the course may have been 50m short (thought we started a good bit behind the measured starting line). Hard to know as the Garmin reception is not great out the course. Still that'd put me at around the 16:30-16:32 mark, which I'd still be very happy with and well beyond pre-race expectations. But yeah, would like to give some more 5ks a pop, particularly as I enjoyed this one so much more than the 'hurty' experience in Kinnegad. Will keep an eye out for those races.

Don't know how many times that course has been measured, always shows a funny distance on the Garmin. I know I run it regularly I get funny average paces on that road due to the tree cover I suspect. From last night I have some funny spikes in pace.

dna_leri

Great going KC - another breakthrough performance. A great example to the rest of us what can be done with the right kind of hard work. Good luck for the big one.

Pisco Sour

5:01 for the 3rd mile seems extremely fast. Was that downhill compared to the other 2?

Whether the course was short or not it's still extremely impressive. All the more reason to do one on the track though I suppose, guaranteed to run the correct distance. Of course, you are going to be fairly chockerblocked with track requests post London.

Krusty_Clown

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Don't know how many times that course has been measured, always shows a funny distance on the Garmin. I know I run it regularly I get funny average paces on that road due to the tree cover I suspect. From last night I have some funny spikes in pace.

Actually, that's a good point. I didn't look at my pace stats. Apparently, I dropped to 7:24/mile for around 30 seconds, later ran at 2:43/mile for 10 seconds (!) and then ran at 6:27 for a stretch (when my time for that miles was 5:01). Stoopid Garmins..

Krusty_Clown

Pisco Sour wrote: »

5:01 for the 3rd mile seems extremely fast. Was that downhill compared to the other 2?

Yep, I ran 8:55 for the first half of the course (incline + head-wind), and ~7:28 for the second half (decline + tail-wind). The last mile is very fast, particularly with the wind behind you and the PB clock ahead of you! Definitely a negative split course!

walshb

Krusty, enjoying the reads here. So much to digest. Your 5 k time is now 16 mins 23 seconds. What was it when you first started and first committed?

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Krusty, enjoying the reads here. So much to digest. Your 5 k time is now 16 mins 23 seconds. What was it when you first started and first committed?

I started running at age 35 around 6 years ago (age may have softened my memory). First race was a 10k in 51:45 (BUPA Ireland run, as it was known back then), from a background of drinking and smoking, and the occasional weekly game of 5-a-side. My first 5k was the MSB 5k (same race your mate competed in) in 2009 (after I'd been running around a year) and crossed the finish line, in 19:04. Here's that very race. Wish my heart rate would still go up to 188!

pgmcpq

That's some going Krusty ! Congrats on a quality podium finish. Interesting to see that kind of result with no focus on short stuff - food for thought. Presumably that's that until you scorch London ?

TRR

pgmcpq wrote: »

That's some going Krusty ! Congrats on a quality podium finish. Interesting to see that kind of result with no focus on short stuff - food for thought. Presumably that's that until you scorch London ?

This is something I've been thinking more and more about. My 2 fastest 5ks came during or just after marathon training with no speed work, it's amazing what miles can do for you. Now I'm sure if I could combine high marathon mileage and fast 5k training I'd be ripping but finding the time and staying injury free are a real challenge. The flip side is if I train exclusively for 5ks my mileage slips and my 5k times get worse!

jfh

great to get reward for serious dedication & hard graft. well done. i'm actually looking forward to seeing how london goes, no pressure, but it's inspiring to see the rewards of sticking to a plan.
JD seems to be working out well for you.

RacoonQueen

Gary, haven't even read your report yet just clicked in earlier to check your time and garmin link. Awesome stuff, don't even need to read the report to be impressed.

Continue to improve and impress, even in your old age! More interested in how you perform in London than how I do. Savage stuff.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I started running at age 35 around 6 years ago (age may have softened my memory). First race was a 10k in 51:45 (BUPA Ireland run, as it was known back then), from a background of drinking and smoking, and the occasional weekly game of 5-a-side. My first 5k was the MSB 5k (same race your mate competed in) in 2009 (after I'd been running around a year) and crossed the finish line, in 19:04. Here's that very race. Wish my heart rate would still go up to 188!

Thanks for the info. Wow, really impressive improvements there. A lot of hard work to get there. It's inspiring. I hope to be 18:50 for the 5 k next month. Can I ask, at 35 were you fairly fit? 19:04 is very good for a 1st effort. I know you said that you drank and smoked, so that couldn't have been helpful, but would you say that you have natural stamina, or speed, or both?

digger2d2

Jeez, everytime I try to play my age card as an excuse, you go and run something like that!! I know you're but a boy in comparison to me but that was a great PB!

RayCun

digger2d2 wrote: »

Jeez, everytime I try to play my age card as an excuse, you go and run something like that!! I know you're but a boy in comparison to me but that was a great PB!

Jaysus, how do you think I feel, the fecker is practically the same age as me! My dreams of age group wins are crushed into teeny tiny pieces every time I see him at a race :pac:

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Thanks for the info. Wow, really impressive improvements there. A lot of hard work to get there. It's inspiring. I hope to be 18:50 for the 5 k next month. Can I ask, at 35 were you fairly fit? 19:04 is very good for a 1st effort. I know you said that you drank and smoked, so that couldn't have been helpful, but would you say that you have natural stamina, or speed, or both?

Hi Walshb, before I started running, I came from a background of one hour of exercise per week (maximum). I wasn't a great footballer either, just tough and scrappy, so no stamina or speed. No sporting background when growing up. I did try GAA when I was 11 years old, but only lasted two weeks.

When I ran that 5k though, that was on the back of a year of running, that included a 1:44 half marathon (IIRC) and then a 3:25 marathon in October. I was training for a 3:12 marathon (50-55mpw) when I ran that first 5k, but got injured shortly afterwards, so never found out what kind of marathon I could've run at the time. So like many others here, my improvements have come on the back of marathon training. In fact, my progression has been pretty average. These training logs are filled with pages from those who have improved at a phenomenal rate (smmoore, claralara, raycun, kielyunusual, ronnie085, to name just a small subset of runners who have come from humble beginnings and are now running phenomenal times). The one thing they all seem to have in common is smart training and commitment (and they all seem to be benefiting from a club environment). By comparison, digger2d2, beepbeep, Abhainn and I (those of a senior disposition) are more like the grandpas that you wheel out of the old folks home into your house once a year for Christmas dinner. You're surprised and impressed when they manage to stay awake until the turkey has been served, and literally ecstatic if they manage not to soil themselves.

If I were you, I would copy your buddy and join Donore Harriers. Running may not be your primary sport (not sure, but you often get associated with boxing, right?), but it'll certainly help with fitness and endurance, and you'll see your 5k times tumble (though I do feel it's only fair to warn you that RacoonQueen is also a Donorian!).

walshb

Thanks, Krusty, for your reply. Very helpful. Right now I have no desire for anything above 5 ks. I like the short, fast and "enjoyable" distances. I need to put in longer runs so that I have the stamina for these shorter and faster runs. Final quetion: Would you say that you are built and natural for these fast short runs? I believe a lot of people are "designed" better to run faster for longer. If you say NO, then I am really hopeful that I can get a low 18 or sub 18 with more miles in training.

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Thanks, Krusty, for your reply. Very helpful. Right now I have no desire for anything above 5 ks. I like the short, fast and "enjoyable" distances. I need to put in longer runs so that I have the stamina for these shorter and faster runs. Final quetion: Would you say that you are built and natural for these fast short runs? I believe a lot of people are "designed" better to run faster for longer. If you say NO, then I am really hopeful that I can get a low 18 or sub 18 with more miles in training.

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead by suggesting that everyone needs to do marathon training to improve at 5k. That is not at all the case. But certainly, the mileage and the structured training supports improvements at the shorter (5k+) distances. I trained specifically for a 5k before, and there's a tendency to ignore or overlook the need for endurance (after all, it's a race of less than 20 minutes). I reckon most of my recent improvements over 5k have come from the tempo sessions I was running at around 5:48/mile (a good chunk slower than 5k pace) and all of the easy runs (at around 7:20/mile) which have greatly improved my aerobic capacity. These days, if I go out for an easy run, my heart rate will barely hit the 130s and my resting heart rate is 36-38bpm. That's all down to lots of easy miles. It's funny to look back at my first ever 'Garmin-recorded' training run (5k in 23:25, @7:30/mile). My average heart rate was 160. Years and years of lazy easy running later, the one key thing that has changed is that my HR has dropped substantially for the same pace.

Am I designed for running faster for longer? My first half marathon in 1:52 says 'No'!
Am I designed for consistent hard-training? Most likely.

nerraw1111

Out of interest KC, what sort of snacks are you eating? I use myfitnesspal too but my issue is that unless I eat two dinners a day, or (have some beers!), I’m not getting close to my calorie target. (2500)

walshb

Krusty, not at all, you didn't mislead me. I am aware that you need to put in miles to improve over 5 k. You need to do runs in excess of 5 ks. That doesn't mean halfs or marathons.:) If you get the miles into your legs, good quality miles, then your speed/indurance should improve, which will really benefit you at 5 k race time. Your stories and info and advice have been really helpful. Delighted to read them.

dna_leri

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead by suggesting that everyone needs to do marathon training to improve at 5k. That is not at all the case. But certainly, the mileage and the structured training supports improvements at the shorter (5k+) distances. I trained specifically for a 5k before, and there's a tendency to ignore or overlook the need for endurance (after all, it's a race of less than 20 minutes). I reckon most of my recent improvements over 5k have come from the tempo sessions I was running at around 5:48/mile (a good chunk slower than 5k pace) and all of the easy runs (at around 7:20/mile) which have greatly improved my aerobic capacity. These days, if I go out for an easy run, my heart rate will barely hit the 130s and my resting heart rate is 36-38bpm. That's all down to lots of easy miles. It's funny to look back at my first ever 'Garmin-recorded' training run (5k in 23:25, @7:30/mile). My average heart rate was 160. Years and years of lazy easy running later, the one key thing that has changed is that my HR has dropped substantially for the same pace.

Am I designed for running faster for longer? My first half marathon in 1:52 says 'No'!
Am I designed for consistent hard-training? Most likely.

Krusty,

I always like to compare my 5K time to yours, we have had a roughly similar improvement path over the last few years - 23 mins in 2007, 19.5 in 2008, down to sub 17 in 2011.

However I have approached it from the opposite direction where the 5K is my longest distance and it is one of your shorter distances. Although I have continued to improve at shorter distances, I have plateaued at the 5K over the last two years. I will run another one soon and despite doing more threshold pace work recently (at around 5:50 pace), I don't expect to get the sort of improvement that you have just seen.

Based on that (and I know everyone is different) I would say that 5K improvement is more down to the slower aerobic miles than the threshold pace work. What do you think?

BeepBeep67

dna_leri wrote: »

Based on that (and I know everyone is different) I would say that 5K improvement is more down to the slower aerobic miles than the threshold pace work. What do you think?

I'd say it's a bit of both/all.
The longer aerobic runs will improve your stamina and staying power.
The threshold runs allow you to push on in those final 2 ks.
And the 5k specific work improves the min/km you'll feel comfortable running at.

The challenge is to recognize where to place your bets, based on your weaknesses and opportunities to improve.
I punch above my weight (relatively) at the shorter distances coming from a juv track background. So for me the improvement has come from the increased aerobic base.

Krusty_Clown

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Out of interest KC, what sort of snacks are you eating? I use myfitnesspal too but my issue is that unless I eat two dinners a day, or (have some beers!), I’m not getting close to my calorie target. (2500)

Haha, really?! I find that I get quite hungry (but bear in mind it's been 70-100mpw for the last 2.5 months) and find that it's quite easy to hit my quota on low mileage days (but don't get near it on higher mileage days, now that I'm off the beer).

I typically eat three good meals a day:
Breakfast: 600-700 calories
Lunch: 700 calories
Dinner: 700-1000 calories
Throw in some fruit, and that's already close to my daily target (2,350). I average around 10 miles per day, which is another 1,000 calories. I've attached yesterday food diary. A couple of things to note:

• I'm not that anal about recording this stuff. All of those lunch ingredients are part of a 'meal' I created weeks ago (I didn't add them individually!). I don't actually track squeezes of lemon juice.
• Yes, I had Honey nut cheerios for breakfast yesterday!
• There's more junk/snacks in there than normal, as I skipped dinner and went rock-climbing with the kids after work yesterday so had to fuel up on some quick foods. I had dinner later at 10pm.

That all adds up to around 3,000 calories. I ran 6 miles (roughly an additional 600 calories), so was probably bang on target (2,350 + 600). That doesn't include any of the calories I shed from two hours of rock climbing/bouldering with the kids, so I probably had a deficit yesterday. Like I said, I'm not too anal about these things. If it took me more than 3-4 minutes a day to track it, I just wouldn't bother. As of this morning, my current weight is still 11 stone 1.5lbs (70.5kgs), which is well under the target I had set myself for race weight, though I still expect it will creep up closer to target over the next 2.5 weeks). As you can see from my eating habits, I ain't no angel. I just avoid large amounts of crappy food.

walshb

Krusty, I was meant to ask about height and weight, but I didn't want to be too intrusive. But seeing as you mention your weight, I too am that weight. 154-157 lbs. 5 feet 7 inches tall. Are you taller, and would you recommend me getting to maybe 144 lbs or so?

Krusty_Clown

walshb wrote: »

Krusty, I was meant to ask about height and weight, but I didn't want to be too intrusive. But seeing as you mention your weight, I too am that weight. 154-157 lbs. 5 feet 7 inches tall. Are you taller, and would you recommend me getting to mayBe 144 lbs or so?

Hey WalshB, don't make the mistake of assuming I'm an expert. Far from it. I have a pretty reasonable idea of what works for me! Yes, I'm a good chunk taller (just shy of 6 foot). Weight is more important the longer the distance, but yes, weight certainly has an impact on performance.

There are some online formulas that attempt to predict the impact of weight loss/gain on race times. I'll see if I can find the link.
*Edit*: Here you go: Weight and performance.

walshb

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Hey WalshB, don't make the mistake of assuming I'm an expert. Far from it. I have a pretty reasonable idea of what works for me! Yes, I'm a good chunk taller (just shy of 6 foot). Weight is more important the longer the distance, but yes, weight certainly has an impact on performance.

There are some online formulas that attempt to predict the impact of weight loss/gain on race times. I'll see if I can find the link.
*Edit*: Here you go: Weight and performance.

Thanks. I was hoping you were 5 feet 6:) Doh! Yes, carrying "excess" weight over longer distances can really hinder you. I can afford to lose 7-10 lbs of "fat" and I think it will help me. As long as I lose it in a healthy fashion, and train accordingly. Those great middle distance runners aren't 125-130-135 lbs for no reason.

walshb

BTW, Krusty, I don't believe there is such thing as an expert. It's quite subjective, and for me your knowledge and input are on the level and well thought out.

Krusty_Clown

dna_leri wrote: »

Krusty,

I always like to compare my 5K time to yours, we have had a roughly similar improvement path over the last few years - 23 mins in 2007, 19.5 in 2008, down to sub 17 in 2011.

However I have approached it from the opposite direction where the 5K is my longest distance and it is one of your shorter distances. Although I have continued to improve at shorter distances, I have plateaued at the 5K over the last two years. I will run another one soon and despite doing more threshold pace work recently (at around 5:50 pace), I don't expect to get the sort of improvement that you have just seen.

Based on that (and I know everyone is different) I would say that 5K improvement is more down to the slower aerobic miles than the threshold pace work. What do you think?

I agree with all of BB's thoughts, but just to add a few more: You're at an unfortunate disadvantage, as a 5K race is a lot closer in terms of my year-round training, than it is to yours, given your focus on 800m, so I would expect to see greater gains from my standard training and you will likely have to work harder (in relative terms) for similar gains. Take today's training for example. I ran the equivalent of back to back 5ks in around 17:5x, with a 3 mile easy run in between (and another 6 miles of warm-up/down). In terms of specificity, that's going to be a damn site closer to 5k training, than 800m drills and sprints.

However..... Endurance is great and all, but it doesn't equate to faster times. Faster times are about speed. So all you need is enough endurance to get you through a hard 16 minutes, and your leg-speed will take care of the rest. That kind of endurance can be picked up easily, whereas increasing speed is probably a more challenging undertaking, so in the long run I am more likely to plateau as you have greater potential coming from the speed side of things. Specifically your 'weakness' is more addressable than mine. I'd imagine that if you could get an easy mid-week run completed (8-10 miles) and supplement it with a long steady run at the weekends (12-15 miles) before moving to more speed-endurance type training (tempo + intervals) you'd have it sewn up. Not that I know anything about this kind of stuff. Just some thoughts while I was out running.

dna_leri

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

However..... Endurance is great and all, but it doesn't equate to faster times. Faster times are about speed. So all you need is enough endurance to get you through a hard 16 minutes, and your leg-speed will take care of the rest. That kind of endurance can be picked up easily, whereas increasing speed is probably a more challenging undertaking, so in the long run I am more likely to plateau as you have greater potential coming from the speed side of things. Specifically your 'weakness' is more addressable than mine.

Interesting thoughts. I have always planned that when I stop getting faster that I will invest more time in longer distances. I'm sure I read somewhere that aerobic potential is unlimited whereas anaerobic is physically limited so at some point the only way to get faster will be aerobic improvement.

At the rate you are going, I would not even feel confident now to take you on over 1500/mile - maybe during the summer.

Krusty_Clown

dna_leri wrote: »

Interesting thoughts. I have always planned that when I stop getting faster that I will invest more time in longer distances. I'm sure I read somewhere that aerobic potential is unlimited whereas anaerobic is physically limited so at some point the only way to get faster will be aerobic improvement.

At the rate you are going, I would not even feel confident now to take you on over 1500/mile - maybe during the summer.

I on the other hand cannot see how you could'nt translated that 800m indoor PB into a nice little 4:40 mile.