so was it fast?

This is an abridged version of the McMillan race equivalency calculator using my best college 1500m:

I'm well aware that aging athletes sniveling over faded ability are terribly pathetic so I'll try not to be one. To that end, I think this little table may prove useful. For example, although I never ran a 5K in 15 flat, the table says I recorded an "equivalent" performance, i.e., 4:01 for 1500m. And last fall -- 15 years later -- I ran a 16:57. In other words, I was 13% slower than my lifetime best (16:57 / 15:00 = 1.13).

So was it fast? Is that 13% slow down acceptable? No and no. Going back to the calculator, 16:57 for 5K is equivalent to a 4:53.6 mile, and that is not fast. I just can't call a 4:53.6 mile "fast" even now, in the deep autumn of my running career. Must do better.

shorts!

It was just barely warm enough to run in shorts yesterday so I did 20mi @ 7:05. Other than a slight twinge in my left knee (minor tendonitis maybe?) I was happy because it never felt like I was working that hard. Looking forward to the MV20 in two weeks.

Today is also exactly ten weeks from Boston which means it's the start of my eight week peak training phase. This will include four 20-22 mile training runs (including yesterday and the MV20), four 15 milers, a timed half-marathon, and then just plenty of tempo, hills, and striders.

I'm leaning towards the 3/20 Quincy half because the timing is right, it isn't too far, and the course is flat (allegedly, according to the website). New Bedford is the same day but it's a much longer drive, the course isn't flat, and -- let's face it -- I'm not going to be prepared for that level of competition. Plus the NB post-race food sucks ass.

2011

Only two firm commitments on the calendar so far:
4/18 - Boston Marathon
6/11 - New England Relay

2010 ended badly: I re-aggravated my lower back problem after the SF vacation. I maintained decent mileage numbers but couldn't do quality speedwork. Things feel much improved but the outdoor tracks are snowbound now which means hills and road tempo... blah.

6K tempo

Another perfect morning for running, and this went about as well as I could have hoped. My target 2K split was 7:20; actual splits --
7:11.92
7:14.49
7:14.84
overall = 21:41.25
average lap = 86.75
average mile = 5:49.8

I should note that 2.25 years ago, I did 6.4K tempo (one lap further) in 22 minutes flat (only 18.75 seconds more). Two weeks later I had one of the worst races of my life, a weak Vermont relay performance a few weeks after that, followed by nearly a year of lassitude. All of which I'll try to avoid this time around, of course.

run for ricky 10/9

AM - 15 min warmup and 5K race
PM - 30 min easy

Solid, steady effort at the Ricky 5K after a good training week. It was nice to have someone else lead for a bit after last weekend's double; both of those races were settled in the first three minutes. Yesterday I ran conservatively for ten minutes or so and then dialed it up. Hadn't planned anything in the afternoon until I saw the results of the Reeves 4.6mi race: Top five finishers all under 25 minutes. So my 5K pace would've landed me in sixth place. Yuck.

two 5Ks

I decided to experiment with back-to-back 5Ks over the weekend.
Here are the results:  race one   race two

I don't plan on trying this ever again. I felt great throughout the first race and horrible in the second. I do have some experience with multiple hard runs in a single day (the Vermont 100 mile relay) so I wasn't too worried about this, but I'm kind of useless today.

Now I just need to find a flat 5K for this Saturday...

3x1500 @ I pace

This morning I did: 3 x 1500 (4:52 - 4:57 - 4:57). For some perspective, in the summer of 2008 a similar workout went like this: 3 x 1600 (5:05 - 5:08 - 5:08).

What does this mean? I have no idea. It's almost impossible to judge my fitness level from workouts because once I start rolling, it gets fun, and I do them too fast. But in the spring of 2008 my 5K time was right around 16:15 and at this point my goal is to get back to that by the spring of 2011.

6x400 @ R pace

Which is, of course, my favorite workout at the moment. Splits were: 69.1, 67.8, 68.2, 67.0, 67.6, 66.9.

It's been a long time since I've raced but I'm guessing that my VDOT is 59 or 60, which means my 400s should take 75 - 76 sec. In other words, this was way too fast. So it was really more of an 'F' workout (Fast reps) and JD reserves those for middle distance specialists: 800, 1500, 3000 meters. And my excuse for doing it is, um... because I love it?

5.6K tempo

Ideal running conditions this morning. My target 800 split was 3:00; my actual splits were --
2:56.37 (too fast)
2:57.65 (better)
2:58.42 (better)
2:54.32 (walkers in lane one, so I had to drift out, then I over-compensated)
2:55.14 (rolling now so go with it)
2:55.79
2:53.74
overall = 20:31.43
average lap = 87.96
average mile = 5:54.7

full recovery

As I was doing my 3 x 5min VO2max intervals this morning, I realized something a little odd about the way I do speedwork: I always use full recovery in between the hard phases, regardless of intensity, duration, or specific workout purpose. As this sounds like it could be counterproductive in some situations I'm going to rationalize my approach here.

For short fast intervals -- JD's "R" training -- I think full recovery is the only sensible choice despite the notorious 60 x 400 workout portrayed in Parker's Once A Runner. In JD's own words, "you recover until you feel you can perform the next run as well as you did the previous one... if mechanics suffer because of a cut in recovery time, the purpose of the session is lost." Anything less is a bad idea.

For medium-length VO2 intervals -- "I" training -- I again think full recovery makes the most sense as long as the hard phase is at least five minutes long. Well, I don't go less than 5:00 anymore (or more than 5:00 for that matter). JD again: "When running at proper I pace, your body takes about 2 minutes to reach the point where it's operating at maximum oxygen consumption (the purpose of the workout)." Furthermore, you will still get three quality minutes, i.e., five minutes minus the two minutes of build-up, "even if you completely recover between each of the 5-minute runs." So why make it more difficult?

Finally, for longer cruise intervals -- "T" training -- I agree that full recovery would be a mistake. But I don't do cruise intervals; I do continuous tempo runs. And this really is just a matter of personal preference. I've tried cruise intervals and found the recommended one minute recovery duration to be more maddening than helpful. In other words, I prefer no recovery over very short recovery.

So there it is: Full recovery for R and I, no recovery for T. Which leaves hills...