FootLocker 4:28 1st mile

I agree that the best way to run your fastest in a 5k, strictly physiologically speaking, is with a slight negative split.

However, physiology isn't the only x-factor in racing, especially in cross country. You must consider your competition, the course, your mentality and preferences, fitness, etc. It is impossible to predict the way the race will play out before hand, so you have you to do your best to plan for everything.

In an elite cross country 5k, it is important to be with the leaders somewhat early (in my opinion). No, you don't have to be up there at 200 meters. You don't even have to be there at the mile, but you need to be somewhat close. Perhaps, the best strategy would have been to run an evenly split 4:30-4:35 mile (not a 2:10 first 800, which probably means a 62-63 first 400). Then again, it's very hard to tell what your pace is early in the race, and guys are just trying to stay near the front. They probably weren't too happy to see 2:10 on the clock, but by then it was already too late to really rectify the situation.

But it is important to eventually be "up there," perhaps within a couple seconds of the pack by the halfway point of the race. That is, if you aren't way, way better than your competition. If you're the class of the field, you can race however you want, really. If you're not "up there" then you can't cover moves. In general, you are racing the people around you over the last half of the race. There is a strong mental aspect to it. You also can't expect to make up a 10-second gap and run down a pack of six or whatever over the last mile. They aren't all going to come back.

I used to be all about even splits, and I still am in many situations (almost always in long track events). My mind has been changed by a few years of big collegiate cross country races, and how I have performed with various tactics. My opinion is that it wasn't feasible for someone to go out in 4:45 and expect to win that race. I will go as far as to say that it would have been impossible.

I agree it's physiologically laughable to compare marathon and 5K but not psychologically. In both cases you let the leaders go. It doesn't matter whether you're elite or recreational, negative splits will get the best race. Every world record above 800 meters is negative splits. The frontrunner who's in the lead is fine if he or she is still comfortable, but if it's too fast at first and you go over the edge, you're done.

I agree that letting the leaders go is risky and at the elite level, one runs to win. But your fastest race can be done in no other way than negative splits, so why not race this way? It's a simple matter of aerobic and anaerobic capacity. There's just no doubt about it that high school kids have pacing issues, 2:10 for the first 800? I doubt that anyone even closed in 2:10.

R.L. Scribner wrote:

My opinion is that it wasn't feasible for someone to go out in 4:45 and expect to win that race. I will go as far as to say that it would have been impossible.

more empirical evidence that if you grow up on DyeStat, the human brain turns into sludge.

small dyestat child wrote:

more empirical evidence that if you grow up on DyeStat, the human brain turns into sludge.

Yes, I agree.

FunRunnerRslow wrote:

http://www.runnerspace.com/photos.php?do=view&photo_id=1242

Luke Puskedra wasn't the only runner taking it out fast like so many have stated! Looks like in this pic there are SIX runners at 4:28! Not just Luke! As matter of fact, Fout is right there! Not only does he not die from going out fast but continues to push the pace until he is far out in front and no one has a chance to check him! Alsome race!

I look at that picture and I see Fout near the front, but not at the front. If Puskedra was out in 4:28, Fout had to be a second or two back. Doesn't sound like much, but it is. Also, Fout probably wans't right with the Puskedra at the 400 or 800 and was just getting up to the front by the mile.

Fout's first mile of 4:30ish was probably run more like 2:15/2:15 while Puskedra's was more like 2:10/2:20. They both got to the mile at about the same time, but Fout did it smarter and didn't pay for it at the end of the race like Puskedra.

"With pacing being so important, why does it seem to get overlooked so often? Do people get caught up in the moment, or are they delusional of their capabilities?"

As a high school coach, my guess is that, because 80-90% of a high school field does it, an athlete who goes out fast and dies doesn't actually lose a lot of places during the last part of the race, because so many others are also dying.

The bottom line is that most athletes simply don't trust their fitness enough to be able to spot someone 100 meters the first mile of a 5K, because they don't believe in their hearts that they can make up that much ground. I tell my runners all the time: "Believe in your fitness. Run the first mile intelligently."

Sean Nunn

Raytown MO

There is the issue of the course, I agree, hills and surfaces. I think mentality plays into it as well. Psychologically, it takes guts and experience to not be with everyone going out hard. If this is preached as a team concept, then it's easier. I personally witnessed the Colorado team at Regionals staying together through the first 5K, they weren't at the back of the pack but they weren't lead-dogging it, though a guy like Brent Vaughn could have (5th at Nationals). It seems like it's preaching two different philosophies. One to your top runner who wants to win so e needs to be up front, and another to the rest of the team who you want to run smartly. In reality it's not, because your top guy is still going to run his best race if he's comfortable up front and not going out too hard.

One anecdote in support of intelligent splitting:

Matt Tegenkamp's junior year in high school (in Missouri), he got into a routine of going out like a rocket at the gun. Because he was so fit and talented, it worked every race, until state. At state, he had a huge lead and three guys working together rolled him up at the end. (Don't remember what place he finished, but he definitely didn't win.)

His senior year, he ran the first mile with the lead pack, then put ONE MINUTE on the entire field in the last 2.1 miles (and the field included Jason Sandfort, a future 4-time NCAA cross-country All-American). I believe this anecdote demonstrates as well as anything the advantage of intelligent splitting.

Sean Nunn

Raytown MO

There is something to be said for "going for it". But why is it necessary to "go for it" in the first 800m? Some people call that "racing with heart"; I just call it dumb. I always tell my athletes to "take a risk" at a big meet. But take the risk by running the MIDDLE mile at a faster pace than you think you can maintain, not the first mile.

Sean Nunn

Raytown MO

Luke Puskedra:

"The race was just a good experience with good people. I accomplished what I wanted to and ran my own race."

yeah you ran one of the dumbest races in history, what a great experience it must have been. Next spring when Fernandez is trying to break 8:40, try going out in 4:05. That will make the same amount of sense.

If you're going to take a risk at all, why not try dropping a 4:10-4:20 mile during the last mile and leaving the field behind? If you die, you die, but taking it out hard at the beginning has never proven to be anything but suicidal. It's not a risk, it's stupidity and inexperience.

kartelite wrote:

At first I was thinking maybe I wanted to get out hard...but I haven\'t really done that all year, so my legs just wouldn\'t take me too hard in that first 400... I think I was in about 20th or 22nd. I looked behind me and I saw like three people...

20th -22ndat the 400 but where was he at the mile? I really don\'t know but I bet he was less than 8 seconds behind..

Evil wrote:

The people saying you should pace yourself have never been in a true competitive race. You have to go out with the leaders to have a shot at the win that's the reality because in a pack of say 6, there is a huge possibility that one or two will be able to maintain or just slightly back off the pace and continue to pull ahead.

Sorry to break the news to you Evil, but people like you are EXACTLY the reason runners run STUPID races by going out too fast in the beginning. It doesn't matter how big the lead pack is if they are are starting to fast. A bigger pack just means more runners are getting passed when they die.

You seem to think we are promoting staying way back and unleashing a fearsome kick where you make up 15 seconds running a 50 second last 400 to nip the other runner at the wire. That is not the case.

Watch the girls race and notice how Brasovan just kept working her way up. She was 6 seconds behind at the 12 minute mark. She caught Hasay at 14 minutes. At 16 minutes she was 7 seconds ahead and beat her by 11 seconds.

SHE OUTRAN HER BY 17 SECONDS THE LAST MILE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simple rules for running cross country are to never lead the first mile. If the race is competitive, do not lead until after the 2 mile. Do not take the lead until the pace starts to seem slow to you and you know once you go, nobody will be able to catch you.

Another point that has been missed is that even if you go out with a pack, if you are able to tuck in and let them break the wind, you are using a lot less energy than the leader. If a few runners have equal abilities and do not go out overly fast, this small advantage is similar to starting a little slower and may give you the edge to win the race. Of course if the pace is way too fast, a smarter runner in back of you will beat you too.