DCM 2012 Graduates - the next step

Dilbert75

You not running Clontarf then BL?

Runchick

murphd77 wrote: »

Have entered all the race series events except the 10k. Entered the marathon while I was at it.

Great news that you can run DCM Murph

Runchick

Loving my new Garmin 410 (well I am now after a week of cursing it because I couldn't work it properly :eek:)...highly recommend it to anyone thinking of a new watch

Big Logger

Dilbert75 wrote: »

You not running Clontarf then BL?

Na, wont be. Will be lucky if I get in the race series.
you'll enjoy it with the pacing experience. I think even if its windy it might be a blessing in disguise with the humidity of late.

Dilbert75

Clontarf vs Tonga must have been a tough decision - enjoy!

Murph_D

Runchick wrote: »

Great news that you can run DCM Murph

Ha - could well be tempting fate entering this early. But hopefully will see out the next few months without disaster. Looking forward to Race Series 5-mile next week which hopefully will be the start of an injury-free few months.

AdpRo

Distance|PB 31/12/12|2013 Aim|Current PB
5K | 23:47 | 22:xx | 23:12
5M | 50:54 | 39:xx | 39:00
10K | 54:31 | 49:xx | 48:45
10M | 93:11 | 89:xx | 86:40
13.1M | 2:01:53 | 1:59:xx | 2:01:53
26.2M | 4:39:04 | 4:14:xx | 4:39:01

3 down and 3 to go after Dunshaughlin on Saturday, race went great for me despite the wind and rain! Excellant race and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for a 10K this time next year.

RedRunner

Question for Meno:

Assuming I can get over my back issue and get a couple more decent weeks training in, was half thinking of signing up for Clontarf HM as just a "see where I'm at" kind of run. Do you think this will fit in ok with your plan?

menoscemo

RedRunner wrote: »

Question for Meno:

Assuming I can get over my back issue and get a couple more decent weeks training in, was half thinking of signing up for Clontarf HM as just a "see where I'm at" kind of run. Do you think this will fit in ok with your plan?

Short answer: not really.

I think the last thing you need to do if you are injured/coming back from an injury is to go out and race a Half marathon, regardless if it fits with the plan or not. I am sure our LSR for that weekend wouldn't be much more than the HM distance but you would be supposed to do it slow....

Falling at the end of week 2 you would also need a taper into and half a week recovery from the half in order to do it properly... so no midweek session on the second or third week. The idea of the first few weeks is just to get the mileage up and do a few light sessions (base building) so unless you were definitely going to take the HM very slow (i.e. around 2 hours) it just doesn't fit......Now if you had been training specifically for this race it would be fine to do your own thing and join in the plan after week 3 when you have fully recovered, but I don't think you have been?

RedRunner

menoscemo wrote: »

Short answer: not really.

I think the last thing you need to do if you are injured/coming back from an injury is to go out and race a Half marathon, regardless if it fits with the plan or not. I am sure our LSR for that weekend wouldn't be much more than the HM distance but you would be supposed to do it slow....

Falling at the end of week 2 you would also need a taper into and half a week recovery from the half in order to do it properly... so no midweek session on the second or third week. The idea of the first few weeks is just to get the mileage up and do a few light sessions (base building) so unless you were definitely going to take the HM very slow (i.e. around 2 hours) it just doesn't fit......Now if you had been training specifically for this race it would be fine to do your own thing and join in the plan after week 3 when you have fully recovered, but I don't think you have been?

That's grand. I might Marshall instead then:) I hadn't been doing any specific training for any specific event just getting mileage up with a few races thrown in here and there. Happy to hold off. Planning to reduce number of races anyway now and focus on marathon training.Thanks .

Big Logger

RedRunner wrote: »

That's grand. I might Marshall instead then:) I hadn't been doing any specific training for any specific event just getting mileage up with a few races thrown in here and there. Happy to hold off. Planning to reduce number of races anyway now and focus on marathon training.Thanks .

Youre mad for the races rr

Dilbert75

Big Logger wrote: »

Youre mad for the races rr

Shtone mad for shpeed!

Dilbert75

The link below is to the results of a survey that wextipp carried out on behalf of Kilmore AC into what people want from road races. It's interesting when you compare it to what a lot of races are offering.

http://www.kilmoreathletics.com/2013/06/24/road-race-survey-results/#more-1898

RedRunner

Dilbert75 wrote: »

The link below is to the results of a survey that wextipp carried out on behalf of Kilmore AC into what people want from road races. It's interesting when you compare it to what a lot of races are offering.

http://www.kilmoreathletics.com/2013/06/24/road-race-survey-results/#more-1898

I think the majority (if not all) would subscribe to those results. Though I would be interested in reading about the survey participants, eg number surveyed, how regularly they run, etc.

Murph_D

RedRunner wrote: »

I think the majority (if not all) would subscribe to those results. Though I would be interested in reading about the survey participants, eg number surveyed, how regularly they run, etc.

Well if the majority would agree with the result, why question the sample and the method?

The survey suggests that people want a well priced, accurately measured, chip-timed race with promptly published results.

Explains the parkrun success. Three and a half out of four. No chip timing, but an alternative, cheaper system that allows the best price of all.

Dilbert75

RedRunner wrote: »

I think the majority (if not all) would subscribe to those results. Though I would be interested in reading about the survey participants, eg number surveyed, how regularly they run, etc.

As a previous participant in a Kilmore race I got a survey invitation by mail. I believe the link was also on some threads here too but I don't know anything about the quantity or profile of other participants.

New runner

Going today to get my zones done, have never had them done so will be interesting to see how they differ from what I have been using based on my HRR which I worked out by getting my resting HR and subtracting it from my max HR. Have any of u had your zones done n how u feel about them. I must admit don't follow it great.
Planning on doing a 10m race in limavady ( co Derry) on Thursday eve after work, though don't feel in good shape for doing it at all. Can't believe I ran a marathon just over 3 weeks ago, feel really sluggish etc. Also apparently the zone testing quite tough n I know I'll feel it in my legs Thursday nite but it arranged now as we got a deal for a man coming to do load of us all day!

RedRunner

murphd77 wrote: »

Well if the majority would agree with the result, why question the sample and the method?

The survey suggests that people want a well priced, accurately measured, chip-timed race with promptly published results.

Explains the parkrun success. Three and a half out of four. No chip timing, but an alternative, cheaper system that allows the best price of all.

All I'm saying is that most people I'd expect like ourselves who contribute to these fora would probably answer the questions in that way, certainly I would. But if you were to take a sample of people from the bigger events like race series, it might be different. More people might like the goodie bag and t-shirt, especially if they don't run regularly and just do these races as a once off.

Not trying to rubbish the survey in any way and still think it is interesting to see those kind of statistics. If it was intended to get a picture of what regular runners want from a race, then it hit the nail on the head and fair play to them for undertaking the survey.

Runchick

New runner wrote: »

Going today to get my zones done, have never had them done so will be interesting to see how they differ from what I have been using based on my HRR which I worked out by getting my resting HR and subtracting it from my max HR. Have any of u had your zones done n how u feel about them. I must admit don't follow it great.
Planning on doing a 10m race in limavady ( co Derry) on Thursday eve after work, though don't feel in good shape for doing it at all. Can't believe I ran a marathon just over 3 weeks ago, feel really sluggish etc. Also apparently the zone testing quite tough n I know I'll feel it in my legs Thursday nite but it arranged now as we got a deal for a man coming to do load of us all day!

Very interesting NR, how did it go and was there much difference in what you thought your results might be?

New runner

Hi RC, not big lot really but nice to know for sure anyhow, they stopped the test b4 I reached my max which I was surprised about however apparently the reason they did was coz my blood lactate level had reached a level of 4 , which is the level that your muscles can no longer get rid of n your corresponding HR at this level is known as your lactate threshold, hence your zones are worked out from this. my zones are
Zone 1: 109- 142
2: 143- 150
3: 151- 159
4: 160-167-170 ( LT 167)
5: 171+

AdpRo

Does anyone have any idea what a realistic time someone would need to be able to run for 10k, 10M, 1/2M in order to give a Sub 4 marathon a go? I remember some talk last year that your 10M time * 3 is a good indicator of marathon time so 1:20 for 10M would be a good indicator but any idea on the rest of them?

I am ignoring McMillan for this as based on my 10K time from last week he gives me 3:48 for marathon which I know is not going to happen!

Gavlor

Weetabix wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea what a realistic time someone would need to be able to run for 10k, 10M, 1/2M in order to give a Sub 4 marathon a go? I remember some talk last year that your 10M time * 3 is a good indicator of marathon time so 1:20 for 10M would be a good indicator but any idea on the rest of them?

I am ignoring McMillan for this as based on my 10K time from last week he gives me 3:48 for marathon which I know is not going to happen!

Why would anybody on this forum know better than McMillan?!

Surely if McMillan is giving you 3.48 based on 10k then sub 4 should be well within your grasp?

RedRunner

New runner wrote: »

Hi RC, not big lot really but nice to know for sure anyhow, they stopped the test b4 I reached my max which I was surprised about however apparently the reason they did was coz my blood lactate level had reached a level of 4 , which is the level that your muscles can no longer get rid of n your corresponding HR at this level is known as your lactate threshold, hence your zones are worked out from this. my zones are
Zone 1: 109- 142
2: 143- 150
3: 151- 159
4: 160-167-170 ( LT 167)
5: 171+

Where did you get this done? Sounds like really useful info to know.

Dilbert75

Gavlor wrote: »

Why would anybody on this forum know better than McMillan?!

Surely if McMillan is giving you 3.48 based on 10k then sub 4 should be well within your grasp?

It's widely acknowledged around here, if nowhere else, that McMillan is not great for inexperienced runners at marathon distance. Based on my 10k time in April it predicted I would do a 3.16 marathon and we know how that ended.

Gavlor

Dilbert75 wrote: »

It's widely acknowledged around here, if nowhere else, that McMillan is not great for inexperienced runners at marathon distance. Based on my 10k time in April it predicted I would do a 3.16 marathon and we know how that ended.

True, but as an indicator for sub 4, surely McMillan, on average, can't be that far out considering weetabix has a 15 minute buffer with the estimate?

ncmc

Just going off my own experience weetabix, I did DCM last year in 3:57 off a 10k time of 48 mins (that was 6 months prior though so I think I would have at a faster 10k in me) and a half of 1:48. I think at the time McMillin was predicting a 3:47 or similar which I don't think was ever achievable for me. Hell, I didn't even get 3:47 in Cork after 6 months training and 5 months of P&D but that's another story!

menoscemo

Dilbert75 wrote: »

It's widely acknowledged around here, if nowhere else, that McMillan is not great for inexperienced runners at marathon distance. Based on my 10k time in April it predicted I would do a 3.16 marathon and we know how that ended.

Yes but we are not novices any more. For a second Marathon with a year of base building you can afford to be a bit more aggressive with the goal time, I'd say the old 5 x 10k time or 3 x 10mile time might even be a bit soft.....

For my first Marathon McMillan gave me 3:47 off my half. I went for 4hrs and got 4:15.
A year later McMillan predicted 3:24 on my half and I went for 3:30 and ran 3:32.

Nowadays McMillan is scarily accurate for me from any distance from 5k to Marathon and I have only been running a few years.

BTW McMillan was giving you 3:05, not 3:15 based on your 10k .

Gavlor

ncmc wrote: »

McMillin was predicting a 3:47 or similar which I don't think was ever achievable for me. Hell, I didn't even get 3:47 in Cork after 6 months training and 5 months of P&D but that's another story!

Deep down you know why.....

ncmc

Gavlor wrote: »

Deep down you know why.....

Hence why I'm refusing to run more than 4 times a week now!

Gavlor

ncmc wrote: »

Hence why I'm refusing to run more than 4 times a week now!

My work here is done!