siehst wrote:
Where does Tinman say run a TT and then subtract about a minute if you think you could have gone faster? Also, a 10k race would probably be on the road and would easily compensate for whatever you held back.
He said TT should be run at 97% effort, because it's super hard to run 100% all-out alone AND because it only takes 4-5 days to recover instead of up to 2 weeks. And it's good enough to predict paces. He even said a 97% effort TT is 5% slower and not just 3%. That would be around 1.5 minutes.
The question is, for me as weak 10k runner how much faster could I really have got. I was lying in the grass after the TT for 2-3 minutes so it must have been intense. Last K only was 3:10/k, so it's not like I had plenty of energy left. And most of that was just from last 200 in 31. It's like Tinman said, I'm an aerobically weak HS kid and can't close last 500-600m FAST because I don't have much left, and most of my time improvement comes from the last 200m.
That points again to using 3:25/k as CV pace, and 3:35/k as threshold pace. I guess I'm just so used to run hard during intervals that it's harder to run slow, at the appropriate pace than faster.
One advantage is it would be easier to progress - 3:25/k first week, 3:22.5/k next week, then 3:20/k. And if my aerobic power turns out to be stronger than my CV, I could at least run the fun stuff like 300s or 400s at my appropriate VO2MAX pace.
Definitely interesting tho, this just shows how incredibly complex training is. My hard 3k-5k paced 1k VO2MAX intervals improved me a lot in the beginning, but then I stagnated and got worse. Now with CV/threshold I seem to be improving more, especially on longer distances, but it's important to hold back and not fall into old habits again of running too hard in workouts.