New Personal Best! Brag About That New Pb!

tennstrike · Post by **tennstrike** » May 15th, 2006, 8:58 pm

TomR wrote:10strike-

Congrats on the PB. Why not go out more conservatively, say 1.45, and then pull it down? Definitely less pain and perhaps a greater likelihood of a faster time.

Tom

Hi Tom:

I'm a big believer in negative splits. They just don't seem to work for me at 500 or 1K. Last time I went for a PB at 1K plan was 1:45 then pull down to 1:44. Did hold the 1:45 with basically no problem until 500. Held 1:44 for onlyaround 100 then just could not hold it. That was my 3:31, although it could be that I am much stronger now and the "old" plan would have worked better.

ancho · Post by **ancho** » May 16th, 2006, 5:48 am

lyons9890 wrote:2k PB today...last 2k was a 7:09....this 2k was a 6:52...a 17 second jump.....im so fucking happy

Congrats, that's a tremendous way to get sub7!

hjs · Post by **hjs** » May 16th, 2006, 6:36 am

TomR wrote:10strike-

Congrats on the PB. Why not go out more conservatively, say 1.45, and then pull it down? Definitely less pain and perhaps a greater likelihood of a faster time.

Tom

On shorter distances (sub 1000) it is almost not possible to negative split. The lactic acid simply won,t let you. A mild form of fly and die give the best results.

tennstrike · Post by **tennstrike** » May 16th, 2006, 7:40 am

lyons9890 wrote:2k PB today...last 2k was a 7:09....this 2k was a 6:52...a 17 second jump.....im so f...ing happy

Congratulations! You must have known for quite some time that sub-7 was going to happen. How did you wait so long? I think the minute I could have gone 6:59.9 I would have made an attempt.

Anyway, congratulations.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » May 16th, 2006, 1:10 pm

hjs wrote: On shorter distances (sub 1000) it is almost not possible to negative split. The lactic acid simply won,t let you. A mild form of fly and die give the best results.

I don't buy this argument. A 3+ minute 1k is roughly equivalent to a 1500 meter race on the track. Those guys don't simply go out fast and try to hold on. I know there is a tactical element to a racing on the track, but still, many runners from 440 (less than a minute) up pace themselves and then kick at the end. No reason it can't be done in a 1k.

By the way Tennstrike, I'm impressed w/ your time and tenacity. If I find myself tying up as you describe, I'm inclined to handle down and whimper like a baby.

Tom

hjs · Post by **hjs** » May 16th, 2006, 1:19 pm

TomR wrote:
hjs wrote: On shorter distances (sub 1000) it is almost not possible to negative split. The lactic acid simply won,t let you. A mild form of fly and die give the best results.
I don't buy this argument. A 3+ minute 1k is roughly equivalent to a 1500 meter race on the track. Those guys don't simply go out fast and try to hold on. I know there is a tactical element to a racing on the track, but still, many runners from 440 (less than a minute) up pace themselves and then kick at the end. No reason it can't be done in a 1k.

Tom

first of all I said sub 1000m that is at most 3.5 min.
Looking at the 1500m you will see that the first 300m is the fastest. Looking at 800m. the second lap is always a bit slower then the first. very common is 50/54 for both laps. this is offcause to fast for the first. Wr races were don 49/52 ish.
Starting out a bit more slowly is must easier but you will never make up for the lost time.

second I said I mild form off fly and die that's certainly not going out fast and just holding on. Pacing is very important. Start too fast and you will crawl the last meters.

whp4 · Post by **whp4** » May 16th, 2006, 8:36 pm

hjs wrote:
Starting out a bit more slowly is must easier but you will never make up for the lost time.

Hmm, I don't understand, apparently. I'm pretty sure if I do a 500m test and row the first 250m at 1:32 pace and the second 250m at 1:36 pace it will take the same amount of time as if I row the first 250 at 1:36 pace and the second 250 at 1:32 pace. I find the fly and die easier only in that I don't have to fight the tendency to go out too fast.

Bill

hjs · Post by **hjs** » May 17th, 2006, 3:58 am

whp4 wrote:
hjs wrote:
Starting out a bit more slowly is must easier but you will never make up for the lost time.
Hmm, I don't understand, apparently. I'm pretty sure if I do a 500m test and row the first 250m at 1:32 pace and the second 250m at 1:36 pace it will take the same amount of time as if I row the first 250 at 1:36 pace and the second 250 at 1:32 pace. I find the fly and die easier only in that I don't have to fight the tendency to go out too fast.

Bill

If you PB would be 1.34 av. you could do it starting out at 1.32 and then die. The other way around would not be possible. I don,t know the exact meganism what is causing this, but it simply can,t be done.
This fly and die principle is very unpleasent, that's why I said starting out more conservative is much easier but it will never give you a 100% max.

jjpisano · Post by **jjpisano** » May 17th, 2006, 1:53 pm

I did a 10k pb today with 2k warmup built in and 8k @ 222w ( about a 1:56.2/500m pace) & @ 20 s/m.

I did 10k in 39:35.0.

My work these days is distance work with a cycle of workouts progressing 1 minute every day from 30 minutes to 50 minutes with 10 minute warmups built into each workout. Every cycle I progress through 10k, so I set aside one workout for a 10k pb attempt with a 2k warmup built in.

Last cycle I did a 10k @ 39:58.2 which was my previous personal best at 10k.

RowtheRockies · Post by **RowtheRockies** » May 17th, 2006, 2:06 pm

Jim,

Great job! without the warm up you would have been sub 39.

Rich

TomR · Post by **TomR** » May 17th, 2006, 3:02 pm

Henry and Bill--

I assume you are both familiar w/ Mike Caviston's data on pacing, which he posted on the "500 pacing" thread here under "Training." Among other statements, he wrote:

"For the past several weeks I have been researching pacing strategies used by athletes in various sports at the Olympic & World Championship level....The results have been consistent and conclusive. Different sports have different characteristic pacing profiles, but in every single sport or event I’ve looked at, the “winners” (top half of the field) have started more conservatively than the “losers” (bottom half)."

Jim Pisano--

Your training method seems to be yielding excellent results.

Tom

tennstrike · Post by **tennstrike** » May 17th, 2006, 3:05 pm

jjpisano wrote:I did a 10k pb today with 2k warmup built in and 8k @ 222w ( about a 1:56.2/500m pace) & @ 20 s/m.

I did 10k in 39:35.0.

Do I understand that you set your Personal Best 10K and broke the distance into basically 2 pieces, a 2K "warmup" then held 1:56.2 for 8K at only 20 SPM? That's a lot of meters per stroke, 12.9 mps!

I've got your workout as 8:35.8 (2:09.0 basically) for the warmup first 2K, then 30:59.2 (the 1:56.2) for the last 8K. That's a negative split! It would seem to me that if you can do this, you could probably hold the 1:56.2 for the entire 10K at, say, 24 to 25 SPM? That would be around 38:44!

Anyway, congratulations.

hjs · Post by **hjs** » May 17th, 2006, 4:28 pm

TomR wrote:Henry and Bill--

I assume you are both familiar w/ Mike Caviston's data on pacing, which he posted on the "500 pacing" thread here under "Training." Among other statements, he wrote:

"For the past several weeks I have been researching pacing strategies used by athletes in various sports at the Olympic & World Championship level....The results have been consistent and conclusive. Different sports have different characteristic pacing profiles, but in every single sport or event I’ve looked at, the “winners” (top half of the field) have started more conservatively than the “losers” (bottom half)."

Jim Pisano--

Tom

True Tom, but that was for distances compared to a 2k so 6 min ish not 2/3 min. I firmly believe in pacing well, but pacing on shorter distances is a bit differant. It has to do with the higher impact of the anaerobic factor.

For a 2k I myself always pace very evenly.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » May 17th, 2006, 4:52 pm

Henry--

Mike looked at 1500 mtr running and 400 mtr swimming, both approx 31/2 minute races, similar to a 1k. So I concluded the same even pacing should work for a 1k as a 2k.

You may be right about a 500. I try to pace those evenly, pulling all out on the final 15 strokes. The idea is that I increase pace at the end, but if I've paced it right, on the last stroke or two I can no longer hold the average pace. Time then to quit.

I pull hard, just not fast.

Tom

hjs · Post by **hjs** » May 18th, 2006, 6:21 am

TomR wrote:Henry--

Mike looked at 1500 mtr running and 400 mtr swimming, both approx 31/2 minute races, similar to a 1k. So I concluded the same even pacing should work for a 1k as a 2k.

You may be right about a 500. I try to pace those evenly, pulling all out on the final 15 strokes. The idea is that I increase pace at the end, but if I've paced it right, on the last stroke or two I can no longer hold the average pace. Time then to quit.

I pull hard, just not fast.

Tom

An other point to consider is this. let say we talk about a 1500m on the track and two alhlete's one also runs the 800m and one also does the 5k.
The same strategie would not give the best result for both.
A very good example for this is the 1500m speedskating. 2 type of athlet's noweday's. The sprinter's and the alrounders. Both skate about the same but the race buildup is very differant.