## / Best run so far

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
16km in 88 mins and 45. I guess there are some far better runners on here but for me not bad.

Does anyone know a good running calculator on the web so I can canculate pace, mins/mile etc.

Thanks
Richard

Nice job!

The only calculator you'll ever need...
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/calculator

Careful, it's possible to spend half an hour on that thing
> 16km in 88 mins and 45. I guess there are some far better runners on here but for me not bad.
>
> Does anyone know a good running calculator on the web so I can canculate pace, mins/mile etc.

If you get too far into running, you'll get good at doing the calculations in your head as you run. Learning a few conversion factors helps - for example, 16km is 10 miles (8km is 5 miles).

So, 16km in 88.45 is just a bit faster than 8.9minutes per mile. 0.1 of a minute is 6 seconds, so 0.9 minutes is 54 seconds, so your 16km in 88.45 is about 8.43minutes per mile. I do sums like this all the time when I'm running, even when I'm wearing a GPS watch which gives all the info I need at the time.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Fine effort. Remember the good times when you hit a plateau. Good luck.
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Just beat that - 17km in 92:50.

Hard but satisfying. Half marathon capability is just a stones throw away, never thought I could do this.

It is funny, whilst me may race in metric, most of us train and pace in imperial.

Bloody mates: one told me he had just done a 10k in 45 minutes. He never runs (although he is a very accomplished good road cyclist).

How the hell do I go from 11kmph to the 13ish to get to 45? That's practically sprinting for me.
> [...]
>
> If you get too far into running, you'll get good at doing the calculations in your head as you run. Learning a few conversion factors helps - for example, 16km is 10 miles (8km is 5 miles).
>
> So, 16km in 88.45 is just a bit faster than 8.9minutes per mile. 0.1 of a minute is 6 seconds, so 0.9 minutes is 54 seconds, so your 16km in 88.45 is about 8.43minutes per mile. I do sums like this all the time when I'm running, even when I'm wearing a GPS watch which gives all the info I need at the time.

You should probably brush up on your mental arithmetic then. It's 8.8 mins per mile which is 8:54/mile.

When you get over 10km the race distances are in miles. 10/13.1/26.2

Good time for a relaxed run, your race pace would probably be 10-20secs a mile quicker. Don't train at race pace you'll injure yourself, and don't forget that McMillan requires a recent RACE time to be effective.

In reply to The New NickB: I'm the same.. I have no idea what 3:40 min km pace is but know my minutes/mile paces...
> (In reply to The New NickB) I'm the same.. I have no idea what 3:40 min km pace is but know my minutes/mile paces...

I would have to work that us to a 5k time, then split it down to miles from that.
> [...]
>
> You should probably brush up on your mental arithmetic then. It's 8.8 mins per mile which is 8:54/mile.
>
You might want to check that.

>
> Bloody mates: one told me he had just done a 10k in 45 minutes. He never runs (although he is a very accomplished good road cyclist).
>
> How the hell do I go from 11kmph to the 13ish to get to 45? That's practically sprinting for me.

You don't worry about it and just keep working on your running.
In reply to The New NickB:
> [...]
> You might want to check that.

Ok 8:52.4 then.
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> Ok 8:52.4 then.

Or possibly 8:48
In reply to gethin_allen: Well I was taking 16km as 10miles but let's say it's 9.94 miles.

45secs is 0.75 of a minute so 88.75/9.94=8.93 min/mile

0.93x60=55.8 secs

So being VERY pedantic it's averaging 8:55.8 a mile.

In reality it'll be something like 11mins/mile uphill and 7mins/mile downhill.

Anyway, to get faster run one or two long runs a week at a slow speed which will build your aerobic base.

I think the point is that you said that 16k in 88:45 is 8.8 minute miles, which it isn't really. Tony's approximation of just under 8.9 was nearer. You then compounded the error by saying that 8.8 minute miles is 8:54, it isn't it is 8:48.

> In reality it'll be something like 11mins/mile uphill and 7mins/mile downhill.
>
I suspect this isn't really very realistic. I did ten miles tonight, making an effort to go slow. Less than a minute between my slowest and fastest miles on a course with 600' of ascent.
In reply to The New NickB: I suspect you're fastest 10mile run is a lot quicker than 88 mins.

.8 of a minute is indeed 48secs. 0.875 of a minute is not 'slightly quicker' lol.

Doing mental arithmatic while out running is quite useful to work out how you're doing. But at 9min/mile you only really need to be within 20secs.
>
>
> How the hell do I go from 11kmph to the 13ish to get to 45? That's practically sprinting for me.

Run more. Some people can just go out and run fast times but don't worry about that! Unless you're Mo Farah you're racing yourself.

In reply to Eric the Red:
> [...]
>
> Run more. Some people can just go out and run fast times but don't worry about that! Unless you're Mo Farah you're racing yourself.

Running more will make you faster, but not much. Do your long run slowly and do some speed work. Then you'll see more dramatic improvement (but don't get injured )

I think as the OP is a beginner, just running more is the key, big improvements will come, then it is time to look at structure.

Totally disagree. Most early 'running career' gains are acheived through running more mileage. I'd say if you aren't doing at least 30 miles a week (probably more like 50) there's no benefit to speed work at all.

I know my running has improved dramatically from upping my mileage from 30miles a week to 70+ and I've done no speed work in 9 months. Specific speed work too early causes injury and people are too keen to beat pbs too soon. A year or 18 months of 'miles in the bank' to get the body used to running are essential. I've learnt this the hard way.

In reply to Eric the Red:

You're right.

Speed work is only really useful in the final stages of a periodised plan. Speed work will 'bring you to a peak'. If you make that peak sooner, then that's it you'll have reached your peak, no more gains.

A good 'base' of steady running, aiming to increase overall capacity will ensure that that when you do come to peak
1) your peak starts from a higher level
2) the peak can be steeper and longer
3) won't collapse so much after.

In reply to Eric the Red:

I'd agree with all that, but just to reassure some people, it's not necessary to run 70+ miles a week to improve - it does all depend where you're starting from. I've rarely done more than 45 miles a week, and my usual half marathon time is about 90 minutes. The incremental improvement in going from about 35 miles per week to 45 miles a week has been about 3 minutes.

For the OP, I'd agree that the most important thing is just to get miles in the legs. The only slight bit of structure I'd think about at this stage would be to try to vary the runs. Don't always run the same route, but mix it up, and if possible, add in a few ascents and descents. What you don't particularly want to do is to get too comfortable with a set pace over the same route. Apart from anything else, you'll get bored.
> (In reply to Eric the Red)
>
> I'd agree with all that, but just to reassure some people, it's not necessary to run 70+ miles a week to improve

God no. Quite right. Sorry.

Can we keep the regurgitating of Lydiard as gospel to a minimum please, it isn’t and talk of periodisation is of no help to a relative beginner.

In my experience most people new to running, especially when they are in there mid thirties like the OP and myself when I started a few years ago is that they are a few pounds heavier than their ideal running weight. Regular running will help shift that weight. Their body might need reminding that it can run for 60 or 90 minutes or longer without needing to stop, regular running will help with this. Regular running will make you a lot fitter.

These will probably the biggest performance gains you have in your running career. I took 11 minutes off my 10k in seven months (50 – 39), since then I have only been able to chip away at that time.

I think training with a group really helps, as a beginner, I spent club nights working really hard to keep up with the group, I got much faster very quickly.

Speed work is great and I love it, but then I am told I do far too many fast miles. Mainly I just enjoy running and running fast is more fun than running slow.
In reply to The New NickB:

> Speed work is great and I love it, but then I am told I do far too many fast miles. Mainly I just enjoy running and running fast is more fun than running slow.

I am just reading Mat Fitzgerald's book (mind body method) and he talks a lot about finding a routine that works for the individual runner. Personal enjoyment is one of the most important factor's for successful training according to him. So following this theory, if running fast i what rocks your boat, than that's the best way to train for you.
I like long plodding in the hills, I simply don't get any enjoyment out of speed work, so keep to a relative enjoyable minimum of some longer hill repeats. Unsurprisingly, I am good a racing in long plodding hilly races and not 5ks ,-)
Anyway, for most non-elites (definitely for beginners) getting out as much as possible and doing the type of running they enjoy most, combined with some sensible nutrition to keep the weight low will probably cause quite a bit of improvement. Most non-elites can forget about periodization as well.

Yes, enjoyment is definately the key.
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers) Fine effort. Remember the good times when you hit a plateau. Good luck.

Managed a paltry 8.45kms and a got a funny twinge in my left hip. i think i will have a few days off, do a few weights and the wall and come back Friday.

In reply to The New NickB:
>
> I think as the OP is a beginner, just running more is the key, big improvements will come, then it is time to look at structure.

Correct, probably two months of 'proper' running.

In reply to The New NickB:
>
> Can we keep the regurgitating of Lydiard as gospel to a minimum please, it isn’t and talk of periodisation is of no help to a relative beginner.
>
> In my experience most people new to running, especially when they are in there mid thirties like the OP and myself when I started a few years ago is that they are a few pounds heavier than their ideal running weight. Regular running will help shift that weight. Their body might need reminding that it can run for 60 or 90 minutes or longer without needing to stop, regular running will help with this. Regular running will make you a lot fitter.
>
> These will probably the biggest performance gains you have in your running career. I took 11 minutes off my 10k in seven months (50 – 39), since then I have only been able to chip away at that time.
>
> I think training with a group really helps, as a beginner, I spent club nights working really hard to keep up with the group, I got much faster very quickly.
>
> Speed work is great and I love it, but then I am told I do far too many fast miles. Mainly I just enjoy running and running fast is more fun than running slow.

Interesting, I'm 36 going on 37 ive been watching the food and i have lost almost 10lbs in about 5 weeks. i enjoy it but really tough today. Mostly my work has been in the gym on the treadmill with a day on the roads once per week at the weekends. i want to keep at it so reading some of this has been very useful. And to reiterate I am very much a newby. Having said that when i started running a few months ago before I started to do this properly i was gdoing 5-6km so i am pleased with the progress. I just need to remember this when I have abad day like today.

im a bit obsessed with fitness at the moment either swimming or gym or running almost every day so not sure if this is sensible at my age either.

In reply to The New NickB:
>
> Yes, enjoyment is definately the key.

Double agree, and didnt enjoy it tonight.

>
> Double agree, and didnt enjoy it tonight.

The difficulty is knowing if the body is trying to tell you something or if it's time to suck it up. ;-) I am still trying to figure that one out ...

When I'm building mileage a regular sports massage works wonders to 'iron out' most little twinges like that before they become bigger injuries. Find a local sports therapist and go for a regular pummel. I pay £30 for an hour once a month.

But rest is good too. And stretching. Keep at it.

> [...]
>
> You had to say something.
>
> Managed a paltry 8.45kms and a got a funny twinge in my left hip.

Be really careful of your hips! When I started running last year I ran too fast too soon and managed to get pain in both my hips. This year I've done a lot of long slower runs and the pain stayed away until Bristol half on Sunday where I pushed the pace again.

I've definitely recommend taking a day or two off and using a tennis ball to massage you hip where it's the most painful.

In reply to Eric the Red: I just bought one of these

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rumble-Roller-Original-Blue-77-5cm/dp/B0042JFAUK/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid...

My old foam roller was just too soft.

HAving got back into running and now regularly running 10 miles my left hamstring is starting to tighten and get sore during the second half of the run, then sore for a day or two afterwards. I'm hoping the rumble roller will pay for itself by helping me avoid the sports massage ;-)

I guess rest , a bit of stretching and strengthening is in order, but it's frustrating to stop when you feel you are making good progress

> (In reply to The New NickB) I'm the same.. I have no idea what 3:40 min km pace is but know my minutes/mile paces...

I use the approximate rule of thumb that 4.00min/km roughly equates to 6.30min/mile (6.26 is closer, but 6.30is close enough), and that every 20s change in min/km gives roughly 30s change in min/mile.

The error isn't huge; 8/5 = 16/10, and 3/2 = 15/10, more than accurate enough for most purposes.

I race and train in pace/km, but am used to having to speak to others in pace/mile