90 minute 1/2M - can I pull it off?

Three years ago I ran 1:29:27 and my fastest 5k that year was 19:15. Last year was 1:31:07 with a best 5k of 19:40. You should definitely be able to sub 1:30:00 with 19:10 speed.

Throwing in my 2 cents - Oh Please is wrong if he thinks anyone under 55 can break 1:30:00 through proper training. I'd estimate less than 5% of men could do it. I'd be surprised if 50% could run a mile at that pace.

Age grading calculator says 55 yo male running 1:29:59 is 77.72%. This is equivalent to a 25 yo male running a mile in 4:46 or a 5k in 16:35. That is not an average athlete in my book. World class no, but definitely a competitive amateur.

50% age grade for 55yo male is 8:50 for one mile. 6:54 mile is 64% for 55 yo male. So you're right, only around 36% can even run a single mile at 1:30 1/2M pace. But they arnt optimally trained, I guess.

I went and dug my pace and HR data out of an old thread on the Runzone forum because I think they're a useful way of getting a handle on a good pacing strategy for the HM. Tinman's advice to me was to keep my HR somewhat below threshold for the first three miles, then slowly pick up the pace. My threshold HR is about 177-179 and my max is 200 on the nose, so that's 88.5-89.5% of max HR.

I don't usually wear a HR monitor during races, and certainly not during shorter races, but it certainly helped me here:

7:05 (171/85.5%)

6:59 (176/88%)

7:02 (177/88.5%)

7:01 (180/90%)

7:01 (180/90%)

6:55 (182/91%)

6:54 (183/91.5%)

6:58 (184/92%)

6:53 (185/92.5%)

6:58 (186/93%)

6:47 (186/93%)

6:52 (188/94%)

6:50 (188/94%)

final .1 mile: 5:38 pace (43 seconds; HR climbed from 190 to 196. Very hard sprint.)

What surprised the hell out of me here was the high HRs that I was able to sustain through the second half of the race. 182 is definitely over threshold, which is to say, over my "one-hour" pace. Yet my cumulative HR for the entire race was 182, and I held that HR, if you will, for 1:31:03.

My goal pace was 6:57, which is exactly what I averaged, but the key thing is, I gave that pace away for the first five miles. Then I was able to hammer for eight miles and get it all back. At age 51, I ran my fastest HM since my return to racing at 45.

Controlled pacing early on is hugely important--as important at proper training. Or at least that's the inescapable lesson of this particular race.

hey kud,

interesting data here...was this on a flat course?

te wrote:

Your story is interesting. Do I have it right?

Age 34, weight 280 lbs. Started cycling (competative cycling within a year?). Plateaued so started running at age 35 in Dec. 2008. After four months of training you ran a 1:26 half-marathon off of 20 mpw. Great results! But your specific workouts look like a whole lot more than 20 mpw. For example, your long run was of at least 14 miles. And your workouts look a lot like a those of a runner who runs a whole lot and has been around for a long time.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. Perhaps you are 37 and I am sure you are very proud of your 1:26. But your posts are a whole lot of "trolling." I hope you don't do quite as much "trolling" with your wife, two kids, and critically important design team.

You summarized pretty well. The only thing that has been misrepresented is that I did not run 126 for my first, I ran 136. The long run for my first was 10 miles, and for the 126 it was 14 miles. The workouts were for the 126, and at that point I had been running longer than 4 months.

If you are truly wanting proof, I will provide in picture form. Just post your email.

I'm actually really ashamed at having been so out of shape, and so as a result none of my running acquaintances know my relatively recent history. There are a lot of coworkers who don't know as well.

Interesting Kudz, you made me dig up my splits from my fall 1:30 to compare. This course had lots of rolls in it with some pretty good climbs sprinkled in. It didn’t fall exactly how I remembered it, but close, I didn’t wear a HM, that would have made for a good comparison, but my max (I think) is 185, so maybe not:

Mile 1 7:00 Steady downhill, ran easy.

Mile 2 7:09 Net uphill, still running easy.

Mile 3 7:00 Flattish, still easy

Mile 4 7:11 A good long climb in this mile, I started to push more.

Mile 5 6:57 A couple of good little climbs in an up and down section.

Mile 6 6:53 One good relatively steep climb.

Mile 7 6:48 Settled into what felt comfy hard through flattish miles.

Mile 8 6:50

Mile 9 6:46 Started pushing it, this mile has good climb at start.

Mile 10 6:49 Another good climb here

Mile 11 6:44

Mile 12 6:30 Net downhill, and only time I was passed, so I latched on.

Mile 13 6:52 Tough last mile, one long climb b4 steep drop

.1 6:00 All I had during an uphill finish.

To the other sub 1:30 hopefuls, I was very happy with this effort, and will continue to start a little above pace going forward, it looks like Kudz did the same, I hope to break 1:30 in September ahead of my fall marathon, sub 1:30 also gets me into NY w/o having to go through the lottery! Good luck to everyone.

An older thread yes. But this is exactly how I was in my last HM race. My HR was relatively high and was amazed how long I was able to keep up that high too.