I just ran an easy 6 miles this morning. My legs felt surprisingly good, given that I ran nearly 4:20 over the weekend. About the only thing interesting that happened was I saw a gal up ahead that was wearing a flesh colored shirt. Obviously, I knew she was wearing a shirt, but until I got within 100 feet of her, I couldn’t tell the difference.
I’ve been thinking about my Grandma’s goal a little bit more lately. Plus, last weekend I had 3 people asked me what my goal is. So, I thought I’d better get something down in writing, because, as they’d say in those Franklin Planning sessions, “an unwritten goal is just a wish.”
I have 2 more months to go and a few more races, so I’ll wait to write anything in stone. But right now, at a minimum, I want to PR, which would mean breaking 2:58. However, I like round numbers and 6:40-pace is a nice, round number that translates to sub-2:55. That feels possible. But then I think; there’s a gal that beat me in two 10Ks last year, by 6 and 13 seconds, who went on to run 2:53:01 at Twin Cities Marathon. So maybe 2:53 is possible, even though “they” say men slow down more than woman, the longer the distance.
My recent 8k predicts a 2:57:03 using the McMillan calculator. In the past, the results of this calculator are pretty “typical.” That means I’ve never been able to run my predicted marathon time. However, this year I feel stronger than I do fast, so maybe this is the year of change – or maybe I’m just fooling myself.
Good work on your blog! Some running blogs are a little too self-absorbed and not very interesting. Yours is a great exception (and not just because I recognize your Twin Cities running routes)
ReplyDeleteMcMillan's calculator comes out a little slower than many conversions (e.g; Daniels' Running Formula VDOT tables). For example, a 36:57 10k in Daniels equates to a 2:50:45 marathon. McMillan gives the same 10k time a 2:53:24. That's a reasonably significant difference. and if it leads you to go out too quickly it could be disaster.
If McMillan has been more accurate in the past go out at that pace, and then if you're still feeling good at 18 try and pick it up. Better to negative split and know you could have gone faster than crash and burn.
Good luck! I'm running Grandmas too.
Hey Evan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind comments. I've been reading your blog daily too, after seeing one of your comments on Alison's blog.
Great job in Rochester last weekend. Looks like you were stuck in "no man's land." What are you shooting for at Grandma's, if you don't mind me asking?
I tend to be conservative with my pacing. My PR was run exactly as you suggested - steady till 18 then picked it up to run a 1 minute negative split.
Thanks. A little windy, warming (52 to 63 degrees in 75 minutes), and lonely, but a good effort. Pity there weren't more people there, though I got a loaf of Great Harvest bread for my 3rd in 30-39 age group!
ReplyDeleteHappy to share Grandma's goals (though I understand when and why people don't share). Right now I feel I could do 2:46/47. In 9 weeks I'm hoping 2:45 will be realistic. My training schedule has three practice 1/2 marathons which I'm planning to do at marathon pace.
It's funny you refer to mile 19 of the TCM course; I tell people I live near there as if that's a common reference point!
cheers
evan