Random Running Questions

Ososlo

aero2k wrote: »

I reckon that sounds reasonable based on your description of how you felt at the end and assuming the w/u and c/d were a good bit slower than race pace.

I'm a great believer in gels for marathons, but I'd only take them in a half for practice. I carried two in Bohermeen but I was unable to even attempt to take them due to the intensity of the effort. Once I'd recovered after the finish I felt I could have gone another few miles, so fueling wasn't a problem. I didn't do any carbo-loading in the lead-up to the race either, just ate my normal meals.

Good luck!

..and here I am, a couple of minutes behind Krusty as usual....

+1 on the advice re starting conservatively - I've ruined at least one, possibly two recent PB attempts by going mad in the first mile.

Great many thanks. Yes the warm up especially was very slow.

There are 1:50 pacers so I'm wondering would the pace be a bit too much for me for the first half seeing as it's slower than the second half which is mainly flat and downhill.

Myles Splitz

Ososlo wrote: »

The faster section was one hour at AT or the effort I feel I could hold for 2 hours in a race so done at slower than my half marathon effort.

Breaking down the maths I would say that it should be achievable.

13.1 miles - 6 miles (warm up/cool down) = 7.1 miles per hour

This would roughly put you around 8.30 pace for AeT session
Warm up and cool down would then come in around 9.50 pace roughly.

I would say the easy pace was at the upper end of appropriate but a sign that weren't out on your feet.

Certainly a good starting point to establish a target time but your HM specific sessions will give you a good sense as to whether this is achievable.

MarkY91

Did a 10 mile last Friday in prep for the frank duffy 10 miles. Did it in around 1:30 hours according to my app..previous longest run was 7 miles.

I didn't eat anything I wouldn't normally. Egg+beans on toast and a piece of fruit. I think I need to eat more as I was starving after 5 miles. Would car loading be handy? What should I eat tonight to load?

Any opinion on my usual pre run breakfast also? Wholemeal toasted bread btw. Not white

Ososlo

Firedance wrote: »

Can't answer the first part (although I'd be surprised if it was no). I didn't take any gels for my last half and it was my most comfortable race at that distance by far, for previous halves I had taken one at halfway, running & eating just doesn't suit me but everyone is different. I think when I asked a similar question a while ago the general consensus was not needed at that distance. Another suggestion was to take one around 20 mins before the race. Good Luck!

ok great to hear your experience thanks Firedance. I'm really worried about getting a bloody stitch too if I have a gel so I'd rather not but hope I'm not missing out on an energy boost by not taking one.

averagejoe123

Ososlo wrote: »

I did half marathon distance in training today in just under two hours. That included 4 miles warm up easy and two miles cool down easy, with 1 hour in between at 2hr race effort. All felt fine. Tired at end but another few miles in me if necessary.
Considering I did this in 1:59 today, does a target of 1:49 sound reasonable in a race at end of august? Knocking off 10 mins?
Comments appreciated Thanks!
Also would most people bother taking gels racing for this length? It's ages since I've raced anything long. Dcm 2013!

Have you done any other races recently? I would imagine someone who does the same high mileage as you would be very close to the mcmillan race time estimates for the longer distances.

If I was you I would be very happy with my training run and confident of hitting a sub 1.50 at the end of August. I would try and get a few miles at HMP next week at part of your long run to familiarise yourself with the pace.

Re gels- Having never used them in my first few half marathons I took one in my last half around mile 8. I don't feel like it benefited me a huge amount and will probably leave them at home next time out.

Ososlo

averagejoe123 wrote: »

Have you done any other races recently? I would imagine someone who does the same high mileage as you would be very close to the mcmillan race time estimates for the longer distances.

If I was you I would be very happy with my training run and confident of hitting a sub 1.50 at the end of August. I would try and get a few miles at HMP next week at part of your long run to familiarise yourself with the pace.

Re gels- Having never used them in my first few half marathons I took one in my last half around mile 8. I don't feel like it benefited me a huge amount and will probably leave them at home next time out.

My best 5k was in May and I did 24:03 so McMillan would give me 1:51 based off that. Training was going well until a few weeks ago when I was sick but climbing back to where I was hopefully.
Thanks for the advice. I was feeling very confident a few weeks ago but as the time gets nearer I'm feeling less so:o but you're right I should be.

Ok, it's looking like I'll skip the gels. Hate the damn things anyways!
Cheers!

rainbow kirby

I don't think you would be too far off a sub-1:50 as long as you get to race day in good shape. Go out with the 1:50 pacers and see how you get on. What's the worst that can happen?

For what it's worth, my fastest 5k is about 25 seconds faster than yours, and my HM PB which was set 2 months after it is 1:50, with a heavy fall at mile 1 and the course was quite hilly.

Ososlo

Myles Splitz wrote: »

I would say the easy pace was at the upper end of appropriate but a sign that weren't out on your feet.

Certainly a good starting point to establish a target time but your HM specific sessions will give you a good sense as to whether this is achievable.

easy pace started out very very slowly well over 10min/mile but increased gradually but it was all very comfortable.

Thanks Myles. Much appreciated. Have a few more specific sessions over the next few weeks which will give me a better idea alright but just want to start thinking now about whether or not to line up with 1:50 pacers.

Ososlo

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I don't think you would be too far off a sub-1:50 as long as you get to race day in good shape. Go out with the 1:50 pacers and see how you get on. What's the worst that can happen?

For what it's worth, my fastest 5k is about 25 seconds faster than yours, and my HM PB which was set 2 months after it is 1:50, with a heavy fall at mile 1 and the course was quite hilly.

Great stuff! Yeah you're right, I should just go and give it a good lash.

Sounds like you would have gone sub 1:50 easily enough without the fall and the hills!!! Tullamore doesn't seem to be quite 'hilly', but more 'undulating' in the first half.
Thanks again:D

Ososlo

MarkY91 wrote: »

Did a 10 mile last Friday in prep for the frank duffy 10 miles. Did it in around 1:30 hours according to my app..previous longest run was 7 miles.

I didn't eat anything I wouldn't normally. Egg+beans on toast and a piece of fruit. I think I need to eat more as I was starving after 5 miles. Would car loading be handy? What should I eat tonight to load?

Any opinion on my usual pre run breakfast also? Wholemeal toasted bread btw. Not white

What about a bagel along with the above for breakfast? I find them great as they're very filling and easy to digest before a long run.

Not sure you need to carb load but you could always have a good old plate of pasta the night before!

Ososlo

What's the female equivalent to a male 20 min 5k?

MarkY91

Ososlo wrote: »

What about a bagel along with the above for breakfast? I find them great as they're very filling and easy to digest before a long run.

Not sure you need to carb load but you could always have a good old plate of pasta the night before!

Never eat bagels but I should try them out. Any excuse to try something new!

Any preferences on what to put on it? :P

RayCun

Ososlo wrote: »

What's the female equivalent to a male 20 min 5k?

What is the distinguishing feature of a male 20 min 5k?

menoscemo

Ososlo wrote: »

What's the female equivalent to a male 20 min 5k?

According to the age grading calculators a 19:59 5k for a senior male and a 22:10 for a senior female both have the same score (64.89%)

PaulieC

Cycling. Any benefit for running or is it "a different type of fitness" like GAA or soccer ?

Ososlo

RayCun wrote: »

What is the distinguishing feature of a male 20 min 5k?

sorry don't understand the question:o***
Do you mean why do I ask about 20 mins specifically?



***Or maybe it's a joke and you're about to deliver the punchline?

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

According to the age grading calculators a 19:59 5k for a senior male and a 22:10 for a senior female both have the same score (64.89%)

Super thanks.

Ososlo

MarkY91 wrote: »

Never eat bagels but I should try them out. Any excuse to try something new!

Any preferences on what to put on it? :P

yeah they're great. Really tasty! You can get wholegrain or white and lots of other varieties too.
I just put butter on 'em toasted, but you could try cream cheese for some extra protein. Peanut butter maybe if you're into that kind of thing either.

ultraman1

Ososlo wrote: »

What's the female equivalent to a male 20 min 5k?

20mins as well .....aren't burds equal nowadays..

RayCun

Ososlo wrote: »

sorry don't understand the question:o***
Do you mean why do I ask about 20 mins specifically?

I mean, what is the key feature of a 20 minute 5k for men? The equivalent for women should have the same key feature. Is a 20 min 5k important because of the number of points it gets in an age grading table?

Myles Splitz

PaulieC wrote: »

Cycling. Any benefit for running or is it "a different type of fitness" like GAA or soccer ?

Will benefit the aerobic system but will not use the same muscle groups so muscular endurance as well as tendon/ligament strength adaptations limited to point where it is not fully transferable fitness. This is one of the reasons why your HR will be lower cycling than running.

Ososlo

RayCun wrote: »

I mean, what is the key feature of a 20 minute 5k for men? The equivalent for women should have the same key feature. Is a 20 min 5k important because of the number of points it gets in an age grading table?

I was just wondering if the Round Number Table targets were equal across all distances, what would be seen as the 5k equivalent for the wimmen!

menoscemo

Ososlo wrote: »

I was just wondering if the Round Number Table targets were equal across all distances, what would be seen as the 5k equivalent for the wimmen!

But then you would have to bring the 5 mile down to about 33, 10 mile to about 66, Mile down to 5:30ish etc etc.
Tbh the majority of the wimmin's numbers are much easier to hit; just the 5k and 10k are harder than the men's.

Ososlo

menoscemo wrote: »

But then you would have to bring the 5 mile down to about 33, 10 mile to about 66, Mile down to 5:30ish etc etc.
Tbh the majority of the wimmin's numbers are much easier to hit; just the 5k and 10k are harder than the men's.

no I'm not saying ye should change them, just wondered is all.

RayCun

My point is, there's nothing special about a man running sub 20 for 5k. I don't mean it's mediocre, anymore than a sub 3 marathon, or a sub 5 mile. It's entirely arbitrary. It just so happens that in this common race distance, about 10% (?) of the male entrants will run a time that starts with a different number to the rest of the entrants. The special thing about 19.59 is that if were a little bit slower your time would start with 2.

So you can plug the time into a calculator and decide that the equivalent time for a woman is 22:10, but women aren't going to get as excited about going from 22:11 to 22:09, any more than a man will get excited about going from 20:03 to 20:01. (if you put a woman's 20 minute 5k into that calculator,what men's time do you get? is it important?)

as ultraman said, the equivalent time is 20 minutes as well

pconn062

PaulieC wrote: »

Cycling. Any benefit for running or is it "a different type of fitness" like GAA or soccer ?

In my limited (and recent) experience of cycling, it is good for maintaining aerobic fitness. However, I have to work quite hard on the bike to replicate the effort of even an easy run. Hit the hills as much as you can to get the heart rate up. It is also good for building leg strength in some muscles that get neglected with running. If you have to miss a few days off running then cycling is good to tide your fitness over but that's all it will do, specific running training is needed for race fitness.

Pacing Mule

Just wondering how far do people here go for accuracy ? After you've matched up / allowed for gender then you end up having to factor in age as well if you want to really compare times. Do you then compare course profiles / weather conditions etc ? You have a lot of factors there !

Personally speaking other than for comparing elite record performances and the occasional bragging rights with a mate :pac: I think the only person to compare yourself to is yourself and your own progress. Do others here really get that hung up on it ? (Btw can certainly understand O asking the sub 20 equivalent as it seems to be one of those boxes people like to tick but is a bit easier for a young male to do so - that's what I tell myself for the moment anyway )

kit3

Pacing Mule wrote: »

Just wondering how far do people here go for accuracy ? After you've matched up / allowed for gender then you end up having to factor in age as well if you want to really compare times. Do you then compare course profiles / weather conditions etc ? You have a lot of factors there !

Personally speaking other than for comparing elite record performances and the occasional bragging rights with a mate :pac: I think the only person to compare yourself to is yourself and your own progress. Do others here really get that hung up on it ? (Btw can certainly understand O asking the sub 20 equivalent as it seems to be one of those boxes people like to tick but is a bit easier for a young male to do so - that's what I tell myself for the moment anyway )

I think it's very much a personal thing. I'd be like you - I compete with myself & try to improve on that. I'm not hung up on what anyone else is doing & would have no interest in playing with numbers to get a 'female equivalent'. For me a time is a time - if you're good enough you'll get it.

TFBubendorfer

PaulieC wrote: »

Cycling. Any benefit for running or is it "a different type of fitness" like GAA or soccer ?

I'm just coming back from injury and my physio had me cycling to keep my fitness from deteriorating completely while I was on the sidelines.

It's hard to tell but I feel the benefits of cycling are rather limited. Obviously I'm not going back and compare what I would be like without cycling altogether but even cycling for an hour at a reasonably hard effort 4 times a week (very short runs on the other 3 days) did not stop my running fitness from going down significantly.

PaulieC

pconn062 wrote: »

In my limited (and recent) experience of cycling, it is good for maintaining aerobic fitness. However, I have to work quite hard on the bike to replicate the effort of even an easy run. Hit the hills as much as you can to get the heart rate up. It is also good for building leg strength in some muscles that get neglected with running. If you have to miss a few days off running then cycling is good to tide your fitness over but that's all it will do, specific running training is needed for race fitness.

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I'm just coming back from injury and my physio had me cycling to keep my fitness from deteriorating completely while I was on the sidelines.

It's hard to tell but I feel the benefits of cycling are rather limited. Obviously I'm not going back and compare what I would be like without cycling altogether but even cycling for an hour at a reasonably hard effort 4 times a week (very short runs on the other 3 days) did not stop my running fitness from going down significantly.

I was thinking of cycling as a supplement to running rather than a replacement. There have been some recent traffic layout changes near to work (sitting stationery for 20 minutes on Tuesday) , so I was thinking of more bike commuting, maybe 4 days a week. It's only 6 miles each way, but it has to have some benefit, right ?