What is the best way to race a 10K road race if going for time. If my goal pace is 6:45, should I focus on 6:45 right away or start a tad slower??? First 2 miles is very slightly uphill, 3rd mile is downhill last 3 miles very gradually work there way back up.
7:00
6:55
6:30
6:45
6:40
6:35
1:25
41:50
Tootsie wrote:
What is the best way to race a 10K road race if going for time. If my goal pace is 6:45, should I focus on 6:45 right away or start a tad slower??? First 2 miles is very slightly uphill, 3rd mile is downhill last 3 miles very gradually work there way back up.
Just tell us what the race is, so we can view the profile and give a more accurate recommendation.
The recommendation of splits by that one poster seems ridiculous. You're going near your limit and your speeding up by 5 seconds on an uphill finish to a 10k? Good luck with that.
I'd recommend going out just barely below goal pace. Depending on the grade of the downhill, you'll probably pick up 10-15 seconds on that mile. If you spread that 10-15 seconds out over the other 5.2 miles, you're running 6:47-6:48 for those miles. You can't give up 15 seconds off your pace in the first mile. Just don't plan on speeding up much at the end of a 10k if it's uphill. It's just not going to happen.
just run 6:45 pace, seriously.
KnowItAll wrote:
The recommendation of splits by that one poster seems ridiculous.
I'd recommend going out just barely below goal pace.
You are the IDIOT!!! You want a runner to go out BELOW goal pace the first mile UPHILL?
If you want to run 6:45 pace for a flat 10k, your splits should be near this: 6:55, 6:50, 6:45, 6:45, 6:40, 6:35.
I added 5 seconds the first 2 uphill miles, subtracted 15 seconds for the downhill 3rd mile, and assumiing this smart racing tactic allowed the runner to run the last 3 miles faster than he thought he could, I left the last 3 miles at the same pace as if it where flat.
While my splits may seen ridiculous to you, I guarantee they will result in the fastest time possible.
Sorry, my words were misinterpreted. When I said go out below pace, I meant slower than goal pace. I shouldn't have used that phrase.
Either way, I still think that level of pickup is unrealistic. Having run several road 10k's myself, I find it unusual that I can even increase my speed by 10 seconds per mile over the whole race, even if I'm feeling great at the end of a race and have held back for the first 4 miles. Having someone drop from 7:00's to 6:30's without changing the grade is silly for a race situation. If you can run a 6:30 uphill at the end of a 10k and you're averaging 6:45 for the whole race, then you went out too slow. Plain and simple.
How can you gaurantee that is the fastest way to run a race? Hasn't it been shown that even splits are the most efficient? For a flat 10k, the fastest splits would be 6:45, 6:45, 6:45, 6:45, 6:45, 6:45. Some people do like to start out a tad slow, just to gaurantee they don't go out too fast. But the most efficient, fastest way to run, is even splits.
In all honesty if the course has hills that are big enough to worry about I say don't bother with the watch. You should have a decent idea of what 10k race pace feels like from your workouts. Replicate that feeling whether you are running up, down, or flat. Keeping the effort constant is key here, not some derived pace based on an estimate of an ambiguous hill. I've passed too many people over the years who crank the uphills and then just "recover" on the downhills to think that it works.
I think starting off a little slow is generally a good idea because many folks tend to get over-excited and go out too fast. If you consciously hold back a little you'll probably be right on the money.
JimFiore wrote:
In all honesty if the course has hills that are big enough to worry about I say don't bother with the watch. You should have a decent idea of what 10k race pace feels like from your workouts. Replicate that feeling whether you are running up, down, or flat. Keeping the effort constant is key here, not some derived pace based on an estimate of an ambiguous hill. I've passed too many people over the years who crank the uphills and then just "recover" on the downhills to think that it works.
I think starting off a little slow is generally a good idea because many folks tend to get over-excited and go out too fast. If you consciously hold back a little you'll probably be right on the money.
I agree Jim, but when you say "starting off a little slow", you mean effort, not pace, right? Because I think if you start off hitting your pace, you will actually feel like it's slow because you're over-excited at the beginning of a big race.
This is the confusion I want people to avoid. You ideally don't start out slow in a race. But you do start out relaxed and cautious, and hopefully, right on goal pace.
KnowItAll wrote:
I agree Jim, but when you say "starting off a little slow", you mean effort, not pace, right?
... you do start out relaxed and cautious, and hopefully, right on goal pace.
Exactly. It should feel a little easier than you might be tempted to do, but combined with adrenaline you'll be right on pace.
Hey Folks,
Thanks for the tips. Below is the course and elevation for Bellin Run in Green Bay. On the chart, mile 2 doesn't seem to feel as high as it looks but it is gradual.
Mile 3 there is one sharp drop hill, then you go up just a bit and another smaller drop hill all of it is probably 1/3 mile. I think 10-15 seconds faster is safe estimate for mile 3. Mile 4 seems pretty flat but sun beats on you. Mile 5 gradually increases but not too noticable except one moderate hill. Mile 6, you can see the elevation though it is mild but visible the whole way. Mentally it doesn't help.
Does this chart change your opinions? I think many people start this race too fast and crash the last 2 miles not taking into account the gradual hill. It is hard to run a negative split on the course because of the big down hill in mile 3.
You should be able to run pretty much even splits at Bellin. There are a lot of people, so the trick is to not go out like crazy (stay controlled) but don't get stuck behind the masses either. If you go out close to goal pace (and your goal pace is realistic) you should be able to run within a few seconds of that for each mile. I repeat, don't go crazy in the first mile.
KnowItAll wrote:
How can you gaurantee that is the fastest way to run a race? Hasn't it been shown that even splits are the most efficient? For a flat 10k, the fastest splits would be 6:45, 6:45, 6:45, 6:45, 6:45, 6:45. Some people do like to start out a tad slow, just to gaurantee they don't go out too fast. But the most efficient, fastest way to run, is even splits.
Numerous studies have shown that the fastest way to run a race is to run the first half in 51% of the time and the second half in 49% of the time. Basic reasons are that it takes a little time for your body to adapt to the race pace and you have some weight loss during the race (dehydration) that will allow you to run a faster pace at an easier effort towards the end of the race.
6:50 (why? because you want to sprint out right at the gun to use up some energy, and then ease back into a slightly comfortable pace.)
7:00 (uphill)
6:50 (coast down)
6:45 (maximum effort)
6:40 (hold max.)
6:50 (max up hill)
1:25 (try to hold max at 6:55 pace)
rip van cripple wrote:
Numerous studies have shown that the fastest way to run a race is to run the first half in 51% of the time and the second half in 49% of the time. Basic reasons are that it takes a little time for your body to adapt to the race pace and you have some weight loss during the race (dehydration) that will allow you to run a faster pace at an easier effort towards the end of the race.
Can you site any of those studies? It sounds like complete bunk to me. If you warmup properly, your body should already be running optimally at the start of the race. And this is the first time that I've heard that dehydration actually speeds you up.
MarathonMind
Is this strategy to race at a 6:55 pace because it doesn't add up to a 6:45 pace???
RipVanCripple
Interesting, I have not heard you can run faster at end of race because of dehydration. I would assume it is because you are lighter. BUT, wouldn't the blood volume loss offset one being lighter. Less blood in body means poorer performance. Hmmm.
You are not dehydrated in the sense that it affects cooling your core temp. It is common knowledge you can lose a half pound to a pound per mile from sweating and if you are properly hydrated to begin the race, it will not have a negative affect. It is also common knowledge that you will run faster with the same energy output at a lower weight. I am not pulling this out of my a**. It is pretty common sense stuff.
I don't have time to find the studies. Do your own search on google or what ever search engine you like and you should be able to find them.
rip van cripple - the splits you listed above are an excellent guideline - couldn't have done better. Of course, people just have to remember it's a guideline. But the general pattern is right on.
here's the only advice my coach ever gave me re: stratedgy: "go out fast, pick it up, then kick"
Rip,
For my 3rd mile do you mean to run at 6:30 pace since it is downhill? You said substract 15 seconds.....
It recognizes that it is a hilly course and 6:45 might not be doable. As it is it's only 20 seconds total over that goal (about 6:50 pace). If he's feeling good then the 2nd mile could be 6:50 and the last 2.2 about 6:45 pace and that will only by a couple seconds over.