From bobg@Radix.Net Wed Jun  9 08:34:10 EDT 1999
Article: 176035 of rec.running
Path: news1.radix.net!saltmine.radix.net!not-for-mail
From: bobg@Radix.Net (Robert Grumbine)
Newsgroups: rec.running
Subject: Capital Crescent 5k race report
Date: 6 Jun 1999 20:52:31 -0400
Organization: RadixNet
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <7jf54f$ac6$1@saltmine.radix.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: saltmine.radix.net
Xref: news1.radix.net rec.running:176035

  Before the race, in talking to a running friend of mine, I'd observed
that the 5k looked like a very unforgiving race.  The basis was looking
at the paces needed to reach my goal times.  There wasn't much range
between starting too fast (going too close to my current mile PR) and
too slow (the race being too short to make up a bad start).  The
observation was correct, unfortunately.  Still, not too bad a day (any
day you take 42 seconds off your 5k pr can't be all bad!).

  Summer is hitting (a word I use advisedly) DC now, although race day
was following the passage of a 'cold' front.  That meant that the
temperatures were only in the low-mid 70's when the race started at
8:15A.  Somewhat humid as well.  There were about 250 of us there, which
made it substantially larger than last year's running (about 150 iirc
>from  their web site).  No attempt at pace control in setting up the
start, which contributed to my bad start. But it was a pretty nice
crowd, and we started after the juniors did quarter and a half mile runs
(very junior, most of them).

  At the start, the pace felt quite slow.  Since I'd seen a lot of
people pushing their way forward, I figured that the pace probably _was_
slow, so started passing a lot of people.  Big mistake.  Most of the
people, I _should_ have passed (hindsight) but I shouldn't have done it
all in the first quarter mile. Hit the 1k mark 15 seconds too fast.  (I
didn't know there'd be a marker there, or in fact anywhere, but the 1k I
should have deduced from the fact that they ran a 2k race as well).  I
still felt good at that point, only 1k after all, so didn't back off the
pace a whole lot.  

  Hit the mile mark _on_ my current mile PR time.  Ouch.  The rest of
the race was lactic land, and pretty repulsive for me.  No hope of even
splits, but passed 1.5 and 2 miles in new PR's, the 1.5 being noteworthy
to me for other reasons.  In spite of running the last mile over a
minute slower than the first (Did I tell mention that on the way out, I
didn't notice the slight downhill slope?  Believe me, I noticed the
uphill on the way back!) very few people passed me.  And I did hold off
someone on the last couple hundred meters, so some reserves (which
should have been tapped!  I'm not a kicker.) available.  The last is
good for future races.

  In terms of PRs: 1 mile - tied, 2000 - by 11 seconds, 1.5 miles - by
13 seconds, 2 miles - by 11 seconds, 4k - by 50 seconds, 5k by 42
seconds.  The 5k brought me in, in spite of drastically uneven pacing,
just under a minute per mile mark.  The significance of the 1.5 miles
was that it was just under my best time in 8th grade cross-country (that
course was even flatter than this one). That leaves just the 800 as the
only 8th grade time I haven't beaten (currently 4 seconds off, then
again, I haven't run an 800 hard for 2 years).

Random thoughts:

  The 5k really is a _short_ race.  Not words I'd have expected to utter.

  The route was out and back, and for the first time on an out and back
race, the people still coming out as I made my way back looked like they
were running pretty quickly for a while after I made the turnaround.

  Since I spent 2/3 of the race seriously in oxygen debt, paid mightily
for that, and still managed to hold off a challenge at the end and take
off as much time as I did, I'm reasonably confident that had I made the
first mile in the planned time (I was 20 seconds too fast) that I'd
probably have just about held it, for the 90 second PR I was looking
for.

  On the other hand, I'm also reasonably convinced that 90 seconds in a
single running of the 5k is now too much improvement for me to look for.
I'm now 4 minutes faster than when I first ran a hard 5k after
returning to running.  69 seconds faster this year.

  All the previous 5k's were on the track, by myself.  Although in a
race, I failed to take advantage of the other runners.  Mistake.  In
that last mile, especially, I think I should have tried to tie myself to
some of the people ahead of me: put the mind in neutral and just try to
flow along with them. That, and/or, I should have let the competitive
urges flow a little earlier on that last mile and attempt to hold off
all challengers.  (If I could do it somewhat easily from 200 m, I should
have been doing it with effort from 1k at least).

  Now that I've done this 5k, I'm deciding that I did that 'lactic
threshold' practice too slowly.  The pace there was the pace I averaged
in this race, and with this reminder of what the bear is like, I realize
that I need another 15? seconds/mile faster on the 'lactic threshold' to
really work it.  That takes it to 30 seconds/mile faster than my current
10k pace, which isn't entirely unreasonable given how conservative I've
been w.r.t. speed work paces.  (The workout, from Owen Anderson, was 10
minutes at 10k pace, with 5 minutes jog recovery, 3-4 repeats; I did 15
seconds/mile faster than 10k pace, in, what now seems like, too much
comfort.)  LT work should be really repulsive.

Next Up:

  1 mile, in early July, targeting 30 seconds faster than current PR. 
This time, however, I'll sneak in a trial or two at or around this
distance and pace, rather than try to do it all in one 'glorious' leap.

Postscript:

  The above was written race day.  Since I was disappointed with the time,
and figured that I needed to get in some quick miles for practice, I ran
a 1600 today.  As expected, took quite a lot, 14 seconds, off my PR.
Recovery from the 1600 a lot faster than the 5k, which had left me 
feeling pretty well tapped most of the day yesterday.

  The 14 seconds on the 1600 this year is more than I'd taken off in
the previous two years (4 seconds between the two of them), and is
quite obviously due to increased base mileage and long runs -- as I had
previously done much more in speed work (the speed in fact not having
changed much on the 400 and 800 m repeats) and tempo type runs.  Log
books are good for this.  The only regret on today's 1600 is that it
left me 3.3 seconds over a minute mark.  Next time (and next time, I
won't be running it the day after a hard 5k!).

And addendum:
  Congratulations to the IronPenguin on his father-in-law status.  Best
wished to the happy couple!
  
(more than) long enough.  Back to running.  Good luck to everyone on
their running, even if we now have to pay a lot more attention to our
heat response!

-- 
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much 
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they 
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences