Is this true?Can you really run 10 x 500m and get your 5k time off of that. so you would add lets say 10 repeats all at 1:25 for 500m. which will give you 14:10 is that right and correct? and the recovery is just a jog back across the infield to the start line. anyone else agree is this theory right or not?
The best way to get an accurate 5k time is to just run 5 kilometers without being a pussy and stopping for a recovery. That is the only way you will truly know what you can run for a 5k.
The recovery needs to be very fast, like in the 25 second range. For Goucher this was a good measure of his fitness because he came back to this workout later in the season and cut the recovery and increased the pace of the 500's, probably while feeling about the same exertion level as before. If the recovery is under 30 seconds, I would say it's a pretty damn accurate test.
This is not a "theory" it is a good "rule of thumb" IF YOU RUN THE WORKOUT AT 55OOFT - forgot about that one didn't you?
since when is Eugene 5500 ft?
Since Mike Sandrock listed this in the book "Running Tough" - Page 84 "Wetmore's Secret Intervals" (or 5K Goal Pace 500s) - Adam Goucher. Done in Boulder - Specifically says "Pace: Sea-level goal pace for 5K".Get a clue.
mpug wrote:
since when is Eugene 5500 ft?
mpug wrote:
since when is Eugene 5500 ft?
its not, but boulder is.
so this is taken from a book or does someone have a link?
Lots of secrets are "hidden" in books - no links.
Goucher ran the 10 x 500 in 12:58 total with 35 - 38 seconds recovery. Obviously, Goucher has not run 12:58 and his PR was 13:11 at the time. The workouts were done at altitude - 5500 feet - so, what can we conclude from this workout "predictor"? This tells you that the workout is not a very good predictor and it would be TOTALLY USELESS as a predictor at sea level.
Is This Right?? wrote:
Is this true?Can you really run 10 x 500m and get your 5k time off of that. so you would add lets say 10 repeats all at 1:25 for 500m. which will give you 14:10 is that right and correct? and the recovery is just a jog back across the infield to the start line. anyone else agree is this theory right or not?
That's like doing 5x1k w/30s rest at sea level, or at least it should be if your talking about running it at 5500, that makes sense off of what other people have done as well as myself when I got to do High/Low in Flagstaff over the summer.
There is also another workout of 30x300 w/ 30s rest that they do too.
hey dufus II wrote: This tells you that the workout is not a very good predictor and it would be TOTALLY USELESS as a predictor at sea level.
He may have only gone 1311, but he also went 734 suggesting he was perhaps a little faster then his 1311 pr suggested. Still not a 1258...but closer most likely. 1305 perhaps.
The McMillan Running Calculator disagrees - it claims the 7:34 is worth a 13:12. So we are still looking at nearly a 15 second difference. A 1600m "predictor" that was off by 4+ seconds at that level would not be worth very much.
10 x 500 with roughly 100m recovery is not a very good predictor, although many would like it to be. The same goes for nn X 200m, nn X 300m and nn X 400m.
To each thier own. I've found i can come within 3 sec of my 400 pace when I do 10 X 400 with 200 jog. So, if i can do 10 X 400 avg 75 then i know i can run a flat 5k at about 78 pace.
-- wrote:
To each thier own. I've found i can come within 3 sec of my 400 pace when I do 10 X 400 with 200 jog. So, if i can do 10 X 400 avg 75 then i know i can run a flat 5k at about 78 pace.
Absolutely and I when I can complete the run from the recliner to the can to the refrig and make it back to the recliner and recline before the commercial is over then I'm ready to run a sub 15 minute 5k.
These things are soooo correlated.
Obviously if you can run a anaerobic repetition style workout in xx then you can run a largely aerobic continous race in xy.
It took me 3 minutes to walk from my car to the starting line last week when I ran 15:08. So if it only takes me 2:30 next time I know its money in the bank that I'll break 15:00.
Try indicator workouts that have a little better correlation with the end goal.
Oh, and have a nice day.
You really are a twit. I've been able to use that workout as a measure tool for the past 15 years. For me it work. Also, 75 sec pace is far from anaerobic seeing as i can run under 4:30 for the mile.
Yea, and if you do 100x50m with 1.25 seconds rest, it predicts your 5k time.
NO it doesn't work, but maybe it would if you could run a 13:10 5k like Adam Goucher
-- wrote:
You really are a twit.
Thank you, I've tried hard to become so. Whatever works for you man, I'm just busting your chops.
ng. wrote:
Yea, and if you do 100x50m with 1.25 seconds rest, it predicts your 5k time.
NO it doesn't work, but maybe it would if you could run a 13:10 5k like Adam Goucher
seems like 100x50m w/ 1.25 seconds rest would work even better than the 10x500m actually. does anyone else think so? why wouldnt it work?
HOw about 10 x 500 with no rest between the 500's? Would this predict your time?
-- wrote:
You really are a twit. I\'ve been able to use that workout as a measure tool for the past 15 years. For me it work. Also, 75 sec pace is far from anaerobic seeing as i can run under 4:30 for the mile.
If you can run under 4:30 you should be able to run 10x400 A LOT faster.