What if you do the first 5k at 5k pace? What happens on the second 5k?
Example. 5k time is 18:00. You run the first 5k of the 10k in 18:00.
What do you finish the 10k in?
(Please ignore the fact this is a bad idea...)
What if you do the first 5k at 5k pace? What happens on the second 5k?
Example. 5k time is 18:00. You run the first 5k of the 10k in 18:00.
What do you finish the 10k in?
(Please ignore the fact this is a bad idea...)
If it truly is 100% 5K effort than one shouldn't be able to finish the 10K
I went out in 15:25 (pr was 15:19 at the time) and came back with a second 5k in 16:40. Was not fun. When I saw the clock at 5k I thought to myself, "that was an easy 15:25 but damn this second half is going to suck."
I ran the first 5k of a 10k in 18:28 when my PR was 18:06. I finished in 37:47. Second 5k was 19:19. I hit the first mile of the 10k in 5:47, which is 17:58 5k pace.
HM.... wrote:
If it truly is 100% 5K effort than one shouldn't be able to finish the 10K
Exactly. You should be seasoned enough in the 5k for your PR to be from a race where you practiced and timed it right and were completely spent in the end. It should be as ridiculous a question as someone asking what happens if they went out at 400m PR pace the first 400m of a mile. If they don't drop out by 600m, that's not a decent 400m PR.
not smart wrote:
I went out in 15:25 (pr was 15:19 at the time) and came back with a second 5k in 16:40. Was not fun. When I saw the clock at 5k I thought to myself, "that was an easy 15:25 but damn this second half is going to suck."
Even if your true 5k current ceiling is much faster than 15:25, that is pretty amazing.
Now, I have a question for you all.
I got a year's supply of contact lenses, the type you throw away after a week. I was in a rush to get to work today. I left them in my car. It was not quite freezing outside nor quite freezing in my car, but I paid a boat load of cash for these contacts. Are they still good to use and will they be close to full quality?
went out too hard wrote:
I ran the first 5k of a 10k in 18:28 when my PR was 18:06. I finished in 37:47. Second 5k was 19:19. I hit the first mile of the 10k in 5:47, which is 17:58 5k pace.
I did this on purpose last fall. 18:40/38:47. I went out in 5:52 and hit the second mile a little over 12 minutes. At 2.5 miles we turned into a wind and I started crashing. I think I hit 5k around 19:20 and finished in 39:20. This is a pr course so probably could have run 38:30. I was basically holding on running half marathon pace the last 5k. I normally even or neg split races.
"If you run the first 5k of a 10k at 5k pace, you're gonna have a bad time" - South Park Ski Instructor guy
i raced a 5k in 16:25, my fastest in a couple years, on a nice flat course and two weeks later raced a 10k with 16:28 - 16:35 splits. something definitely clicked for me that day, but i was terrified at the 5k mark. my first thought was not that i beat my goal time by 35 seconds, but that i should have run harder to get under 33:00
and here's my favorite coaches advice/saying which goes, " if you feel bad at mile 2 of a 10k, you're in deep sh*t"
If you have maximized your aerobic development, 5k pace = 10k pace.
You'll win an Olympic gold medal.
That is, if you're Billy Mills.
Thanks. I became injury prone in college and never got consistent training in. Another curve ball is that our first lap was 80 seconds!
Man I wish I could have gotten consistent training in.
I like the approach of learning to race by ... racing. These days there is way too much pacing (by hobbyists), and that surely is holding back better performances. But sometimes you'll go out too hard and have a tough time. That's life. Only way for a real breakthrough. Back then, most runners didn't even had a watch on in the races.
If you're in decent shape, your 10K pace is only around 15 seconds per mile slower than your 5K pace. So holding back just a little, even if it feels like your top-end 5K pace, means that you can still finish a 10K race at near tempo pace, so you might lose a minute or so, or maybe you don't lose anything at all. First 5K in 18, next 5K around 21, finish in 39:00.
On the other hand, if you were to push yourself to your 5K limit and then immediately need to run another 5K, you'd likely spend the next 1-3 miles at survival pace. Call it 9:00/mile, or 28 minutes for the 2nd 5K, or 42-46:00 for the 10K, depending on if you recovered enough to get back to 7:00/mile.
This isn't just hypothetical, unfortunately. I haven't tried this in a 10K, but when I started running again after a long layoff and entered my first race in 20+ years, I ran faster for the first mile - a lot faster - than I had run a mile before or ran for almost a year after that, over 30 seconds faster than my fantasy goal pace. The middle and end of that 5K race were not pretty.
colder and wiser wrote:
If you're in decent shape, your 10K pace is only around 15 seconds per mile slower than your 5K pace.
Since when is this true? The world record 10k is ~13:08 pace while the world record 5k is obviously 12:37 pace. That's double what you're differential states... You'll probably find that differential to be pretty close to accurate across the board. Rupp's 5k is 12:58, and his 10k is 13:22 pace... A lot of people consider him to be better at 10k than 5k, yet he still has a ~24 second differential. That's for athletes where 15 seconds off their 5k pace makes a big difference, not just for the average competitive runner (aka hobbyjogger by letsrun standards).
could go round again wrote:
If you have maximized your aerobic development, 5k pace = 10k pace.
No.
Interesting Stuff wrote:
colder and wiser wrote:If you're in decent shape, your 10K pace is only around 15 seconds per mile slower than your 5K pace.
Since when is this true? The world record 10k is ~13:08 pace while the world record 5k is obviously 12:37 pace. That's double what you're differential states... You'll probably find that differential to be pretty close to accurate across the board. Rupp's 5k is 12:58, and his 10k is 13:22 pace... A lot of people consider him to be better at 10k than 5k, yet he still has a ~24 second differential. That's for athletes where 15 seconds off their 5k pace makes a big difference, not just for the average competitive runner (aka hobbyjogger by letsrun standards).
He said 15 seconds slower PER MILE.
Interesting Stuff wrote:
colder and wiser wrote:If you're in decent shape, your 10K pace is only around 15 seconds per mile slower than your 5K pace.
Since when is this true? The world record 10k is ~13:08 pace while the world record 5k is obviously 12:37 pace. That's double what you're differential states... You'll probably find that differential to be pretty close to accurate across the board. Rupp's 5k is 12:58, and his 10k is 13:22 pace... A lot of people consider him to be better at 10k than 5k, yet he still has a ~24 second differential. That's for athletes where 15 seconds off their 5k pace makes a big difference, not just for the average competitive runner (aka hobbyjogger by letsrun standards).
He said "per mile".
The 15 second difference thing is true if you are the type of runner that totally sandbags your 5000 races because it "hurts too bad".
Smooth playa wrote:
Interesting Stuff wrote:Since when is this true? The world record 10k is ~13:08 pace while the world record 5k is obviously 12:37 pace. That's double what you're differential states... You'll probably find that differential to be pretty close to accurate across the board. Rupp's 5k is 12:58, and his 10k is 13:22 pace... A lot of people consider him to be better at 10k than 5k, yet he still has a ~24 second differential. That's for athletes where 15 seconds off their 5k pace makes a big difference, not just for the average competitive runner (aka hobbyjogger by letsrun standards).
He said 15 seconds slower PER MILE.
I'm a dumb person apparently.....
Your brain won't allow you to do it so it would never happen. It stops you from murdering yourself