12-03-2015, 01:11 AM
Today I was on day 3 of the sub 45. Remembering that I have already done an ~48.47 10k a couple of weeks ago, I thought I would give the sub 45 a go. Well day 1 and 2 were of course easy ;o)
Day 3 may have been an indicator that i am not ready to sub 45. I tried 4x2k @4.25 pace. I ran 2k @ 4.18 (my Polar M400 gives very wild avg pace so I wasn't aware I was running this quick), then 2k @ 4:32, then I only managed another 1k @ 4:46 and that was it, I was wrecked with still 2.5k to go. I was taking the full 2min break between run just walking.
So that was a bit of a bust. Maybe had I ran the first 2k in 4:25 instead of 4:18 then I may have managed the 3rd 2k at 4:25, but I really don't think I could have managed the 4th 2k at anything other than 4:50-5:00 pace.
Possibly then I should try the sub 50k instead, and try to just be able to consistently run sub 50 easily. However day three (today) would have been 3x2k @ 4.55 which i think would have been a pretty easy day for sure.
I need something in between then, a sub 47 maybe, which would have made today something like a 4x2k @ 4:40, which I probably could manage because my 5k PB is at 4:43 pace.
My HR today was hovering around 172 - 173 coming down to 127 at the end of the 2:00 break.
A side question is this. Is there a formula that shows how increased pace reflects in HR. I suppose this is not at all going to be linear and would differ from runner to runner. Let's say my resting HR is 47 and my Max HR is 185 and that i run 5:00 pace (over say 5k) at avg 163 HR. If I ran again and increased my pace to 4:50 (a 3 % increase) then what would the probable increase in my HR be?
Day 3 may have been an indicator that i am not ready to sub 45. I tried 4x2k @4.25 pace. I ran 2k @ 4.18 (my Polar M400 gives very wild avg pace so I wasn't aware I was running this quick), then 2k @ 4:32, then I only managed another 1k @ 4:46 and that was it, I was wrecked with still 2.5k to go. I was taking the full 2min break between run just walking.
So that was a bit of a bust. Maybe had I ran the first 2k in 4:25 instead of 4:18 then I may have managed the 3rd 2k at 4:25, but I really don't think I could have managed the 4th 2k at anything other than 4:50-5:00 pace.
Possibly then I should try the sub 50k instead, and try to just be able to consistently run sub 50 easily. However day three (today) would have been 3x2k @ 4.55 which i think would have been a pretty easy day for sure.
I need something in between then, a sub 47 maybe, which would have made today something like a 4x2k @ 4:40, which I probably could manage because my 5k PB is at 4:43 pace.
My HR today was hovering around 172 - 173 coming down to 127 at the end of the 2:00 break.
A side question is this. Is there a formula that shows how increased pace reflects in HR. I suppose this is not at all going to be linear and would differ from runner to runner. Let's say my resting HR is 47 and my Max HR is 185 and that i run 5:00 pace (over say 5k) at avg 163 HR. If I ran again and increased my pace to 4:50 (a 3 % increase) then what would the probable increase in my HR be?