Thursday, December 21, 2006

10K Marathon Predictor: ARNWR Charlie Loop-Outer

“If you can bring your 10K time down 30 seconds, you can bring your marathon time down 2 minutes”. As quoted in the Mercury News article Runners Race Against Clock. Would this mean if I ran my last two marathons at 2:52 and a recent 5 + miler in a 5:45 (35:43 10K) pace to achieve sub-2:40 I need to run a 32:43 10K at a 5:15 pace? Come on now Coach Jack Daniels surely I must be applying this wrong. Maybe I am taking this out of context. My planned races thus far to build to the Boston Marathon are a 10-miler and a half-marathon. An unexpected 10K could be in the works for January.


My wife talked me into dropping my run from 9 miles to 7 miles today. It went very well on the reservation. Passing a hunter on the Patrol Road, sitting on the guard rail admiring the marshland, put a small surge in the pace. It wasn’t until the last mile when I ran the extension out to busy Route 27 to sprinkle on a few fartleks that this route was a keeper.


Training: am, ARNWR, 7m 49:02, 7:00 pace 145 HR

4 comments:

  1. corrado giambalvo6:12 AM

    People, including runners, need a Life. You need a Life to feel good about the things you do, including running. So that you are not destructively frustrated as you head towards, but don't necessarily reach, your goal. Peter Gilmore's Life as described in the article seems very boxed in; a grid which allows for little testing and experimenting. Which maybe at 28 you still ought to be doing. And as it stands, would seem a call for donations (money or time) of sorts. Like: give me money so I don't have to work and can rest more. So I can offset the disadvantage that I don't make money running now, so that I will be able to do so in the future. Well, if it happens, it happens, but then you will have to try and think about the implications of receiving money to run so you can earn money running like the pros. The article suggests Gilmore has probably reached his maximum potential at this regimen: but what would happen if he cut his mileage by as much 40 to 60 miles and found something else to do in that time including some "active" rest? Would his race performance worsen? Would it not be worthwhile to try and identify the lowest possible volume to maintain current performance level - as far as racing is concerned? No matter what your talent, speed, potential, it is wise to factor REST into the running/life equation. Otherwise you are just a subroutine, albeit an elite subroutine, without a Life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mark, I don't know if Jack's :30/2:00 "rule" is right or not. However, I think the flaw in your logic is that you're assuming your 34:53 10K is comparable to your 2:52 marathon. A quick McMillan calculation shows a 34:53 10K is "equivalent" to 2:44.

    I understand these calculators are not 100% accurate, however I think it's pretty evident that your 10K time is not "in-line" with your marathon time (mine isn't either), whereas, Pete Gilmore's is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Corrado, thanks for your perspective on the article. Anyone competitivve in this game knows Gilmore is non-sponsore and probably should be. Why he isn't I don't know.
    His described life is written to make it sound more difficult than what it really is.

    It's not fair to me to comment on his training as these are areas I know little of. It is impressive the finish places he had at the Boston Marathon, the BAA Half and NYC Marathon this year. He gives hope to many others out there in similar non-sponsored situations.

    Your comments on REST are noteworthy and worthwhile considering. For my next eighteen weeks its REST on Mondays!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zeke, thanks for bringing those tools to my attention. I have forgotten about them lately. They always make for a good read.

    It's like way back in the day as a youngster browsing the toy catalog dreaming of that new toy!

    ReplyDelete