Going Short: Advice on hitting a 5K Goal (Page 2)

interesting reads regarding racing the 5k

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244-259-11404-0,00.html

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-380-381-386-12460-0,00.html

I remember reading an article in Runner's World a while back about negative splits probably not being the way to go in a 5K...that you can never make up the time you lost in the first 1/2 and you're probably better off with positive splits.  It was backed up with some sort of study.  I tried googling it, but can't seem to find the exact article I'm thinking of.  I did find this piece (and I know...it's only 11 runners, not "real" race conditions, etc.), but I'd like to hear some thoughts on it.  Of course, as others have said, this strategy would require some major warming up so that you don't have to ease into your pace:

Fast forward
While the negative split may be a favourite pacing strategy with coaches, it isn't the only approach. The positive split, which often relies on a fast start, is a riskier strategy, but there's increasing evidence that it can work too. Researchers in New Hampshire in the USA decided to find out how different pacing strategies affect race results. They asked 11 experienced female runners to run 5K on a treadmill to determine their average for the distance.

The runners were then asked to run 5K again, but tackling the first 1.63K at different speeds: once at the same split time as their average time, once three per cent faster, and once six per cent faster. The researchers discovered that eight out of the 11 women ran the fastest 5K when they started six per cent quicker, in other words they ran a positive split. Overall the fastest-start trial times were 13 seconds quicker than the three-per-cent-faster times, and 32 seconds faster than the even-pace trial times; results that would translate to a new personal best for many of us.

ETA: Ack!  Beat by ohiost90...thanks for finding the articles!

A 5k is basically an endurance event (anything longer than an 800 really is), so of course you need to properly pace your effort so that you finish well and not blow the last mile completely.

BUT ...... it does not matter whether someone is an 8 minute runner or a 5 minute one, the EFFORT and INTENSITY level will be the same for both runners.  Just one finishes ahead of the other.

5k's are run well above your LT and even close to your VO2 max.  If you want to have the best time possible, you do not start out slow and ramp it up.  That is simply not how you run shorter races, because as has been mentioned before, you do NOT have time to make up any difference.

To go back to a discussion we had a year or so ago on negative splitting, there are some coaches who prescribe to the "negative splitting a race means that you did not maximize your race potential and ran too conservatively in the beginning."

The strategy I have put firward is NOT what one does to win a race, it is what I have found to be effective in maximizing your effort and putting up the best time possible.  Of course it should be moderated!  If you are an 8 runner, there is no sound reason you should be running a 6 for your first mile.  My first ever x-country race I did that.  I ran a 5:45 first mile trying to keep up with the crowd and then finished the race around 24 ....... the other two miles took over 18 minutes.  Because I went out WAY beyond my ability and suffered for it.

What I said, "go out hard and hold on" is just that.  If you think you can hold 7:30 for the race, go out in 7, hold on through the second mile expecting to come close to your 7:30 and push it the last mile.  Don't go out in 6, suffer through a 7 at the second mile and then blow up and run a 9 for the last (although that would still be a faster race than three 7:30's).  Forgive me for not qualifying "as hard as you can."

It is a completely different strategy for a 10k or a half or full marathon.  Each distance has it's own way to maximize the effort.  But a 5k is designed to hurt.  For the below 30 minute runner you should be way up there in HR.  Anything else you are shortchanging your race, and sure, you may PR, but you will not run the best race that is in you.

But that is just my opinion.  Run the race how you feel the most comfortable.  For me?  If I'm comfortable in a 5k, then I'm not racing it right (regardless of the field - and I'm not always in the front front pack).

I have read this, and implemented it.  It worked well.  P & N splits will work.  I have found an appropritae pace based on either split strategy is what is key.  the funny thing is, no one can ever proove which is better, as it is impossible to dupilcate race and body conditions to compare results.  not even on a treadmill.  It is my experience that positive splitting is easier, especially for a 5k, as holding back takes a disciplined runner. 

for the OP, I would suggest you run an even pace to slightly positive.  unless you have a GPS, this will be hard for you to do, my suggestion is to start out slow, and you will probably be running faster than you think.  if you see someone with a gps, ask them their pace goal, and run with them if it fits yours.  at the first mile marker, they'll probably have someone calling off times.  adjust accordingly.  you'll hit the sub 25, as long as you dont start out too fast. 

X2.  For a 10k, 15k or any greater distance -- this is not a good idea.  But for a 5k I've experienced, and read of numerous people's expriences, where it is best to go out hard for the first mile, hold a consistent pace for the second mile, and then 'hold on' for the final 1.1 mile.  Mentally knowing that there is only 1.1 miles left will get you through it.  5k's are usually very painful. 

For a sub 25 minute 5k, I would go out at a minimum of a 7:50 pace.  This will allow you a little over a 30 second cushion.  I have found, again, and have been more succesful building a cushion and then holding on at the end - then running the exact pace you need and fading just a tad at the end, and you end up just missing your goal.   

Good Luck!

this makes more sense.  thanks.

Coldfire - 2008-12-03 12:44 AM

tri_d00d - 2008-12-03 6:53 AM

Go out hardest in the first mile and then just hold on? Is that a common successful 5K strategy?

Tri d00d - You should go out and lightly jog the first mile, then hit it hard. I normally hammer the first mile, then sit it down in a fast cruise control the second, and when I get to mile marker 2 drop the hammer again. With a race this short, you should be just about to either pass out or throw up at the finish.

Coldfire, take the wings off. They're not allowed in races!

Here's a calculator I found on runner's world. If you want to run the first mile faster (let's just say 3-6%, as in the studies mentioned above), input your average pace and the % you want to run faster and calculate it.

some other running site that is not BT/pacecalc/

If Daremo raced with an ipod he would have more self control

Thanks for all the advice.

 As said above "You need to be blazing at the start".  Yes, your race will be dictated by the type of the race your in.  Also it depends in your relationship to the lead people in the race.  In a highschool race, as mentioned above you better be out fast or you can't have a good placing.  That's not all true, this I managed to take last place for the first quarter mile 3 times. (woot)  But i still managed to finnish in times of 18:48-19:00 min.  

 For me it feels much better to go out a little slower and keep on passing people throughout the race, rather than going out hard and getting passed.  But I really sucked this year so my times suck.  My goal was to go under 17:45 for this and I got 18:48.  My sophmore year in highschool I managed to get 18:28 (last year(2 secs slower than Daremo) and couldn't even beat that this year.  

 On my road racing series this winter If I get even close to 19:00 min than I know I can get into the 17 min with training...you can take a look at my logs to see that I'm just doing some base miles.

 Overall, divide the 5k into 5 parts.  Run each part the same pace and then run a nice 200 at the end of the race.  Footspeed footspeed footspeed.

smilford - 2008-12-03 5:00 PM Well I don't know if you should be fading 45sec on your second mile like Rick.  

The 2nd mile is usually my "now I remember why I stopped running and stuck to bike racing" mile ......

I went back and dug up my 400m splits from my 5k PB:

5km - 19:07
1:28
1:33
1:34
1:33 - 6:08
1:32
1:34
1:31
1:31 - 6:08 
1:32
1:34
1:32
1:30 - 6:08
:43

I didn't realize at the time that it was even paced; obviously the first lap was fast but then after that my goal was just to hang onto the pace.  However, I was paced in this 5k attempt and basically was staying on the shoulder of my pacer through 4.8k and then dropping the hammer (kind of) for the last 200m. 

Shane