Cost of speeding

Only a "UK idiot" (or Roidger, butt that's the same thing)
could possibly ask such a moronic question.

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Is there a rule of thumb on how much it costs you over the
whole race if you go out too fast at the start? Ideally
for different lengths of races.

Cheers,

Paul

Not sure how to calculate that. When you run above LT, you expend glycogen
at a much higher rate (upwards of 19x the rate of glycogen utilization when
under more aerobic conditions).
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there a rule of thumb on how much it costs you over the
whole race if you go out too fast at the start? Ideally
for different lengths of races.

Cheers,

Paul

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there a rule of thumb on how much it costs you over the
whole race if you go out too fast at the start? Ideally
for different lengths of races.

Hi Paul:

I have two data-points from marathons:

1. There was a 10 mile / Marathon (wild wild west in Lone
Pine, CA) years ago, and I thought I would try to win
the 10 miler. So I ran very hard uphill the first 5
miles to the 10 mile turn around. There was one elite
marathoner a bit ahead of me. Unfortunately, he decided
he didn't have it and turned back for the 10 miler. So,
not wanting a mere 2nd place, I decided to slow it down
and do the marathon.

It was hot and hilly (about 90 at the finish). I died and
finished in
2:40 -- about 40 minutes slower than I could have run it had
I paced myself. (I know because two friends of my ability
finished in about 3 hours).

So in a marathon, the cost of going out 40 sec/mile too fast
for 5 miles was 40 minutes.

3. I once went out 15 secs/mile too fast for miles 1 - 6,
and it cut 5-6 minutes off my expected time, I reckon; I
hit the wall at 20 miles.

I never messed up that bad in a shorter race, so I have no
data there.

-- Dan

Buttercup, if you're in shape, it won't matter.

Sam wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Not sure how to calculate that. When you run above LT, you
expend glycogen at a much higher rate (upwards of 19x the
rate of glycogen utilization when under more aerobic
conditions).

The main problem in starting too hard for almost any length
of race is acidosis of the muscles from a rapid buildup of
lactic acid. This not only will force you to slow down
temporarily in order to allow the body to process and get
rid of the excess lactate, extreme acidosis will damage the
muscles to the point where you won't be able to run at your
best pace anymore. This is why intervals done too often in
training can actually ruin some of your hard-won endurance.

In races under 10k , you can go slightly above your lactate
threshold, but preferabley toward the end of the race only.
In marathon distances and above you must run the entire
effort under your LT or lower as the distance increases. For
example, when running 50 miles or more you should keep your
lactate buildup to a very low level or the accumulated
muscle damage will be severe. (I know this from experience.)
Of course when racing the mile or less, there is
considerable lactate bulidup and this is why the 1/4 mile is
said to be the hardest race of all because it hurts so much
from acidosis - there is a great deal of damage done in a
very short period of time in this case.

Lactate threshold is not a magic number because its part of
a continumn, but its is the benchmark effort level one can
sustain for time periods of about one hour or slightly
more. Training based on LT is the best in my opinion
because it allows you to do your endurance efforts at a
level that will do very little muscle damage, whereas you
do your intensity training at a very high targeted level
around or above your lactate threshold. This enables you to
control overall muscle damage by making sure it occurs only
when you're extending your speed, and not during your
general aerobic training. Intermediate efforts don't
provide much more aerobic benefit because you can't keep it
up for very long, but they can cause alot of muscle damage,
so they should be avoided.

I still fall into the trap of jamming at an intermediate
level too often because it feels good to go fast.
Additionally, for me running at a low HR (and low lactate
level) is very hard, so I have to be careful to keep my HR
very low during my endurance runs. Cross training helps here
because its easier to keep the HR in the right place on the
bike for long efforts. I would guess that 95% of people
train too fast most of the time because its very hard to
keep your effort low enough to avoid muscle damage - it just
doesn't go with the macho feeling of getting out there
pushing yourself, especially when running with others. I
know I train too hard, but for me its also about being out
there and enjoying it so I try to enjoy long kinda slow bike
rides through the countryside. Long runs have always been a
problem for me - always do too much damage.... c'est la vie.

- Tony

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there a rule of thumb on how much it costs you over
the whole race if you go out too fast at the start?
Ideally for different lengths of races.

Cheers,

Paul

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is there a rule of thumb on how much it costs you over
the whole race if you go out too fast at the start?
Ideally for different lengths of races.

Hi Paul:

I have two data-points from marathons:

I could cite some data points but I'll save the
embarrassment. 🙂 Many years ago I saw some data on this but
I never saved it nor can remember the author. I was a fairly
simple chart that showed for every second you went out too
fast in a specific race how much it would cost you in finish
time. As an example for every second you went out too hard
in a 5k it would cost you about three seconds. For the 10k
it would be 5-8. What I did notice, and what had a lasting
effect as a distance runner, the time to die was geometric
with longer races. I'm sure there are many people on this
forum have some anecdotal tale of the effects of too much
early speed and the marathon. As I always say stand at mile
21-22 of any marathon and witness the severe slowdown.

And IMO if you want to nearly guarantee a worse first
marathon experience, use those dumb tables that you plug in
your 10k and gives you a marathon time which you in turn use
to determine your pace.

-DougF

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote in news:s6Ttc.2133$bD4.1018
@nwrdny02.gnilink.net:

Quoted message said:

I still fall into the trap of jamming at an intermediate
level too often because it feels good to go fast.

That sounds like me. There is a speed somewhere below LT but
above recovery pace (maybe marathon pace) that seems to give
my body a rush. It's sometimes hard to avoid this zone when
I'm supposed to be either recovering or training at LT or
above. If I'm not paying attention, I tend to gravitate
towards this pace.

Phil M.

--
"I gotta go. You're killin' me."

Doug Freese said:

And IMO if you want to nearly guarantee a worse first
marathon experience, use those dumb tables that you plug
in your 10k and gives you a marathon time which you in
turn use to determine your pace.

Hmm... let me see.

10K time pre-Dublin (my first marathon), 45:31. Predicted
time, 3:29. Actual time 3:31.

Worked pretty well for me. ;-)

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:sz_tc.150283$WA4.15657
@twister.nyc.rr.com:

Quoted message said:

I'm sure there are many people on this forum have some
anecdotal tale of the effects of too much early speed and
the marathon. As I always say stand at mile 21-22 of any
marathon and witness the severe slowdown.

Yes. Not fun. The big marathons with the marching bands,
cannons firing, the Blue Angels buzzing the crowd tend to
make you a little jumpy at the start. OTOH, I wonder how
many people start out too slowly only because they like the
feeling of passing hundreds during the last 10k of a
marathon. I'd say if you're going that fast at the end, then
maybe you actually started too slowly for achieving your
best time. However, I'd rather err on the side of starting
too slowly.

Phil M.

--
"I gotta go. You're killin' me."

Doug Freese said:

And IMO if you want to nearly guarantee a worse first
marathon experience, use those dumb tables that you plug
in your 10k and gives you a marathon time which you in
turn use to determine your pace.

So what would you suggest instead ?

PS tempted to do precisely that with my first marathon just
to annoy Doug (-;

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And IMO if you want to nearly guarantee a worse first
marathon experience, use those dumb tables that you plug
in your 10k and gives you a marathon time which you in
turn use to determine your pace.

Hmm, 33:35 10k predicts about 2:37 and some seconds. I did
2:37:10. Dang!

I did lots of 5k and 10k races as I was gearing up for my PR
attempt -- they told me when I was ready.

Courtesy of Gardner-Purdy tables:

runnersweb.compurdytbl.htmlOpen ↗

Phil M. said:

Yes. Not fun. The big marathons with the marching bands,
cannons firing, the Blue Angels buzzing the crowd tend to
make you a little jumpy at the start. OTOH, I wonder how
many people start out too slowly only because they like
the feeling of passing hundreds during the last 10k of a
marathon.

Probably not very many. Take a look at marathon splits some
time, and see how many are heavily negative (especially in
the last 10k).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

That sounds like me. There is a speed somewhere below LT
but above

recovery

Quoted message said:

pace (maybe marathon pace) that seems to give my body a
rush. It's sometimes hard to avoid this zone when I'm
supposed to be either

recovering

Quoted message said:

or training at LT or above. If I'm not paying attention, I
tend to gravitate towards this pace.

Try this cure, it always worked for me:

Run 11 - 13 miles Mon - Sat. Do speedwork (close to vo2max)
on tues & thursday. 10k Race on Saturday. Hilly 18 - 20
miler on Sunday. I bet you go slow on Mon, Wed & Fri!

--Dan

Dan Stumpus said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

And IMO if you want to nearly guarantee a worse first
marathon experience, use those dumb tables that you plug
in your 10k and gives you a marathon time which you in
turn use to determine your pace.

Hmm, 33:35 10k predicts about 2:37 and some seconds. I did
2:37:10. Dang!

I did lots of 5k and 10k races as I was gearing up for my
PR attempt -- they told me when I was ready.

Courtesy of Gardner-Purdy tables:

runnersweb.compurdytbl.htmlOpen ↗

The tables can be abused -- of course someone who runs 15
miles per week and then uses a 5k time to predict a marathon
time is asking for trouble. Or someone who uses a winter 10k
to predict a marathon in >80 degree heat.

Despite these criticisms, the tables are a damn good
starting point, and they beat the hell out of reading tea
leaves or whatever method Doug believes in.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

And IMO if you want to nearly guarantee a worse first
marathon

experience,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

use those dumb tables that you plug in your 10k and
gives you a

marathon time

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which you in turn use to determine your pace.

So what would you suggest instead ?

For the average runner with minimal time at running and
likely little training experience, slower than their long
run pace. Take those 5 and 10k times and use them line the
bird cage. Those charts are only worth a [censored] when you know
what you are doing. Most of the neophytes don't have a
***king clue and those are the ones that use those charts
and implode.

Quoted message said:

PS tempted to do precisely that with my first marathon
just to

annoy Doug (-;

Being the egotistical overachiever, I would expect you to be
close. Sad to say the average bear falls way short in
training and crashes. Somehow I don't expect you to try the
marathon any time soon. Training for the marathon usually
sucks up your 5 and 10k speed and I doubt your ego could
tolerate not running those biweekly sprints in the park with
the "boys" or running them and being less competitive
feeling compelled to explain yourself.

-DougF

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hmm, 33:35 10k predicts about 2:37 and some seconds. I did

2:37:10. Dang!

As I Said to Donovan, and I should have added to my original
post, for those that know what they are doing and likely not
their first, they are a fair guide. For those that don't,
they are equivalent to the checks in the mail.

-Doug

Dan Stumpus said:

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

That sounds like me. There is a speed somewhere below LT
but above recovery pace (maybe marathon pace) that seems
to give my body a rush. It's sometimes hard to avoid this
zone when I'm supposed to be either recovering or
training at LT or above. If I'm not paying attention, I
tend to gravitate towards this pace.

Try this cure, it always worked for me:

Run 11 - 13 miles Mon - Sat. Do speedwork (close to
vo2max) on tues & thursday. 10k Race on Saturday. Hilly 18
- 20 miler on Sunday. I bet you go slow on Mon, Wed & Fri!

Hahahahaaa ... found exactly the same thing myself -- if
you're training hard, you simply will not feel like running
quickly on the easy days. If you do feel like bolting on the
easy days, you can probably afford to train harder, unless
you have an important race coming up.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Dan Stumpus said:

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

That sounds like me. There is a speed somewhere below LT
but above recovery pace (maybe marathon pace) that seems
to give my body a rush. It's sometimes hard to avoid
this zone when I'm supposed to be either recovering or
training at LT or above. If I'm not paying attention, I
tend to gravitate towards this pace.

Try this cure, it always worked for me:

Run 11 - 13 miles Mon - Sat. Do speedwork (close to
vo2max) on tues & thursday. 10k Race on Saturday. Hilly
18 - 20 miler on Sunday. I bet

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

go slow on Mon, Wed & Fri!

Hahahahaaa ... found exactly the same thing myself -- if
you're training

hard,

Quoted message said:

you simply will not feel like running quickly on the easy
days. If you do

feel

Quoted message said:

like bolting on the easy days, you can probably afford to
train harder,

unless

Quoted message said:

you have an important race coming up.

Exactly why people go too hard imho. 2 days of speedwork and
a race a week? Not for this 41yo dude. Well you guys are
serious runners, I'm not. I train for health, recreation,
and the freedom that being in good shape brings. I stick to
my mantra however: the stress/recovery/improvement formula
works only with the exact right amount of recovery for each
individual. Really understanding recovery and holding
yourself back in training is very hard for everybody.
Addiction to endorphines is powerful and dangerous and you
all should seek help. lol.

- Tony

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Re: Cost of speeding

It varys state to state. Here it's $20 per mile-per-hour
over the speed limit.