I got really excited and thought this said 10x1000 at 2:39 at first, but then realized that no professional athlete would ever start a thread about that. Go for like 16:30!
I got really excited and thought this said 10x1000 at 2:39 at first, but then realized that no professional athlete would ever start a thread about that. Go for like 16:30!
Smoove wrote:
I think 6-8 x 1000 with 2:45-3:00 active rest or 5-6 x 1200 with 3:00 active rest or 4 x 1600 with 3:00-3:30 of active rest would each be better measuring sticks, with the longer intervals being the better predictors.
What would you say to 5x1600 with 2:30-3min active rest (slow 400 jog) at 5:18 average? Thanks.
PrZ wrote:
I got really excited and thought this said 10x1000 at 2:39 at first, but then realized that no professional athlete would ever start a thread about that. Go for like 16:30!
lol, how many guys could do that?
Hard to say. Short rest is impressive leading my to believe that the pace was actually slower than your 5k pace should be. Same thing for the high number of intervals. Maybe closer to 16:00? All of this is always guess work.
Excellent workout. Sub-17.
Smoove wrote:
Hard to say. Short rest is impressive leading my to believe that the pace was actually slower than your 5k pace should be. Same thing for the high number of intervals. Maybe closer to 16:00? All of this is always guess work.
That would be great, haha but I don't know about close to 16 just yet.
OvO wrote:
It really wasn't, sorry
Was it on the track, road or XC? If XC you have no damn clue, sorry. If road, if you don't have certification sorry. If track, cool.
way too much rest to be an indicator. go for it, you coward! the 5k is about pain10 x 800 @ 2:45 with 90 seconds rest would be more beneficial than what you did
OvO wrote:
Smoove wrote:Rest is too long and 800s are just short enough to be a mediocre at best 5k predictor. I think you think your in sub 16:40 shape, but I think that's maybe a little of a reach. Sub 17:00 isn't unlikely at al.
2 minutes of that rest was active, if it makes a difference. What would be a better predictor? Ks with the same rest? Or 800s with a shorter rest?
Rest is far too long to make a prediction!
Hmm I'm getting 16:17 (on a track) with my 5k calculator. Seems generous in part because of the high volume i.e. 3000m over race distance. I assumed you were running 45 miles per week.
http://www.runaugur.com/workouts/3429
I'm in curious what you end up running!
I like running 1200s in 5 minutes for a race predictor. 1000 at 5K race pace with a 200 meter jog recovery. You should hit 1200 in 5 minutes.
For example, if your 5K pace is 5:20, then you should run the first 1000 in 3:20 and jog a 200 in 1:40 for recovery.
If you can hit 5-6 at your race pace, then you should be good to go on race day.
I did almost this exact workout.
10x800 @ 2:38 avg w/400 jog recovery (about 2:00-2:15 time-wise).
Ended up running 17:03 on a relatively fast XC course the following week. Would've been 16:50s-mid if the race volunteer hadn't briefly pointed me the wrong way. Still my PR. I'm not bitter... I promise...
As others noted 3:00 is too long recovery, but you are potentially close for using this as a predictor workout...
I do find this to be a good workout indicated with the shortened rest no matter what I'm training for. whether it's a 1500/mile/3k on the track or a HM on the roads, hitting this workout in the middle of dense training and not topping out usually indicates pretty strongly what other performances I'm capable of in that training area. It may not work for everyone but is pretty solid for me
For me, personally, 10x800@5k goal fitness pace with less than 2:00 recovery 400jog is always a good indicator of fitness.
If i can run around 2:20 and not feel like I'm going all out on every rep, I know that I'm usually in 3:50/14:30/66:30 type shape.
Assuming I feel the same and in the same part of the training cycle, If I'm closer to 2:25 than 2:20 I'll be around 3:55 / 14:45 / 68:30 type of fitness.
Around 18 flat.
OvO wrote:
To give you some more perspective, my XC 5K PR last year was 17:39 (graduated now). I raced a Turkey Trot 10K in relatively the same shape 2 months later, which was a great race. The time was low 39s. The week before that 10K I raced an 11:03 3200m.
Whatevs. Go run a 5k and come back and tell us how it went. That workout and those 2m/10k times do not inidicate sub 17. You came here and asked and we have answered. Don't get pissed if you don't like the answer.
psychrunner wrote:
OvO wrote:Was a while ago
16:59
From 10:30 for 3200, you'd get about 17:15 for 5K, and that's pretty consistent with 2:39 for 800s with long recoveries. So 17:15 is my guess.
If you run a 16:58 last month, I suppose you'll be around that. There is no better predictor than that...
Easily sub 16:30. If not, there is something wrong with your training.
Sub 20 for sure!