Does anyone have any stories about how they started off "too fast" but then hung on for glory (5k and up)?

Studies show that people who go out at a faster pace (within reason) usually have a faster overall time, than if those same people go out slower and try to make it up later.

Don't get on me about negatively splitting an 800m etc. I think it means that if you go out at 15min pace in a 5km, hoping to speed up and finish in 14:45, you are better off going out in 14:40, or 14:45 pace (roughly).

Billy Mills tells the story of his 10k Olympic win as having gone through 5k a mere one second over his 5k PR (in the lead, as I recall), and deciding to go one more lap than pull off at one of the tunnels. But each tunnel he passed, he saw someone he knew so he kept on going... No one gave Mills much of a chance going in, but he persevered and surprised himself as much as anyone else.

So, if you feel you have to take that approach to make the team (huh?), focus on small objectives after the first mile and see if you can trick yourself into holding on.

Dan

asdfsadf wrote:

Studies show that people who go out at a faster pace (within reason) usually have a faster overall time, than if those same people go out slower and try to make it up later.

Don't get on me about negatively splitting an 800m etc. I think it means that if you go out at 15min pace in a 5km, hoping to speed up and finish in 14:45, you are better off going out in 14:40, or 14:45 pace (roughly).

I don't believe you that such studies exist

It depends.

If you're in 17:00 shape and try to hang with guys going through the mile in 4:50, you're gonna die badly. But you can be in 16:00 shape and if the stars align, you might be able to go 4:50, 5:00, 5:15 or something like that.

I agree, though, negative splitting only works if you're running the first mile close to lactate threshold.

In college, Pete Pfitzinger's real "breakthrough" race was probably the IC4A xc meet his junior(?) year at Cornell, back when the IC4A was a hugely major meet--maybe second only to the NCAAs. It was also the NCAA qualifying meet that year, IIRC.

I remember Pete's telling the story afterward: "When we went across the bridge I was in fourth place! I was looking around and said, 'Hmm, there's Flora...' Then a guy passed me every half-mile or so, and I finished 14th." In other words, he put himself in the front group and then faded--but slowly.

Harry Groves's line was, "Victory does not come in the second wave." He may have been talking more about team wins, but the principle still applies.

Story of my running career. Ran for a team that won multiple state championship and had 8 guys run 15:00 or better for 3 miles. I always went out with the goal of breaking the top 7, which meant my first mile was usually 4:55 or faster. I would fade and end up running 15:30 to be 9th on the team. Maybe I would have run 15:15 if I had paced myself better, but better to try to make it and blow up then not try at all. Would have been a top 5 runner on any other team in the state.

One time I went out real fast in a 5K and then hung on at the end for a win.

True story.

Maybe if you had gone out slower and run 15:15, you would have gained confidence. Then eventually you would have made the top 7. Your strategy was foolish.

UsainBold wrote:

Story of my running career. Ran for a team that won multiple state championship and had 8 guys run 15:00 or better for 3 miles. I always went out with the goal of breaking the top 7, which meant my first mile was usually 4:55 or faster. I would fade and end up running 15:30 to be 9th on the team. Maybe I would have run 15:15 if I had paced myself better, but better to try to make it and blow up then not try at all. Would have been a top 5 runner on any other team in the state.

Not 5k or higher, but this is still sweet to watch- especially for someone from Columbus, Ohio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3djhvmhFXc

dave wottle. that is all/

asdfsadf wrote:

"Studies show that people who go out at a faster pace (within reason) usually have a faster overall time, than if those same people go out slower and try to make it up later.

Don't get on me about negatively splitting an 800m etc. I think it means that if you go out at 15min pace in a 5km, hoping to speed up and finish in 14:45, you are better off going out in 14:40, or 14:45 pace (roughly)."

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244-259-11738-0,00.html

Here is a study which indicates running the first mile of a 5K 6% faster than your most recent 5K pace produces a faster time than running the first mile of your 5K 3% faster than your 5K pace, or running the first mile of your 5K at your 5K pace. Granted it is a small study; and the researchers did not look at the effect running the first mile of a 5K 4% or 8% faster than 5K pace would have.

Thus, according to this study a 15:00 5Ker should aim to run his / her first mile in about 4:30; a 20:00 5Ker should aim to run his / her first mile in 6:03, or close to all out.

UsainBold wrote:

Story of my running career. Ran for a team that won multiple state championship and had 8 guys run 15:00 or better for 3 miles..

I find this hard to believe.

worst poster wrote:

UsainBold wrote:

Story of my running career. Ran for a team that won multiple state championship and had 8 guys run 15:00 or better for 3 miles..

I find this hard to believe.

Seriously? You've never heard of York?

Sometimes it works out. Back at a point where I had never run under 34 for 10k I had a really good summer of training and did 16:01 in a 5k at the start of the fall. In October I went into a 10k that was usually won mid-32 and decided to run the first 3k at 5k PB pace and then try to hang on. I ran 3:11/k through 3k and was alone after 2.5k. Faded off that pace in the second half but still hung on to win in 32:40. The next year I tried going out slower and negative splitting and finished in 32:37. Not much difference.

running girl 79 wrote:

Here is a study which indicates running the first mile of a 5K 6% faster than your most recent 5K pace produces a faster time than running the first mile of your 5K 3% faster than your 5K pace, or running the first mile of your 5K at your 5K pace. Granted it is a small study; and the researchers did not look at the effect running the first mile of a 5K 4% or 8% faster than 5K pace would have.

Thus, according to this study a 15:00 5Ker should aim to run his / her first mile in about 4:30; a 20:00 5Ker should aim to run his / her first mile in 6:03, or close to all out.

The main limitation of that study apart from sample size was that it only looked at females in the 18-21 minute PB range, so it is hard to know how it would extrapolate to someone with a sub-16 PB, although the OP didn't mention their times, so it still might be relevant. I suspect that as runners get faster, this study would become less relevant, and the even split/slightly negative splits seen as optimal for elite level runners becomes more relevant.

When I was 35 I ran a small 5k race in LA.

Not being from LA and having been out drinking

a bit the night before, I figured I would feel a bit rough but if I went out quick the other guys might let me go.

By the time I started dying just under a mile to go, the

to go, I had a good enough lead. Won in 15:45

. Second place guy was kicking himself as he gained a lot but just came up short. Had he gone out with me he would have won I'm sure.

Hey imaged, looks like such a study does exist. How do you like those apples?

OP, are you in high school or college? Hanging on after going out too fast is a lot easier in a 5k than in an 8k. If you're in HS, what kind of high school coach cuts someone who puts in good work over the summer and then gets sick?

college, and the home opener is only 5k (course isnt big enough for longer) and just considered a "start of season time trial."