Critique my half-marathon

tysontate

I did a 13.1 at the CIM today (freezing, but fun!) and finished in 1:38:45. I'm on week 10 of the OS (I jumped back from week 14 to week 9 last week) now and didn't do any specific prep other than take off the Saturday ride. My last 5k test was at 19:58, for a 50 vDOT. According to the vDOT calculator, that means I should be able to manage a 1:32 or so (ha! right!).

My goal was to run at a 1:40 pace and then give it whatever I had left from mile 9 or so to 13.1. For the first 5 miles, I was able to stick to that plan pretty well.

However, I got nasty side cramps at about mile 5.5. I waked about 0.2 miles and then they were manageable and I was able to get back up to a decent pace while keeping the cramps down. It took me about 3 miles to catch back up to an overall 1:40 pace, and then I pushed it slightly thereafter, mostly worried about getting cramps again (I ran just barely below the point of making the cramps flare up again).

 

My main thoughts after the race are that it seems like the 5k test is a poor way to evaluate your vDOT. According to my last 5k test, I should be at 50, but according to the race today, I should be at 46. That's... a pretty big difference. How much overall time could I have possibly lost for waking 0.2 miles? 1 minute? I brisk-walked for about 50 seconds at one aid station, as well.

Anyways, I've attached a screenshot of my Forerunner's charts for the race. Any ideas why my test numbers are so different from my race numbers? Any and all ideas appreciated!

 

Tom Glynn

Tyson, with all testing, vDot included, the more you do the better off you are. I've tested my vDot a bunch of times now and over a variety of lengths from 5K, 10K and half marathons. Most recently I've run a 5K and half for vDot scores. The half marathon was one point lower.

You may find that you still need to do a little more volume to better your longer distance times. In the off season we are running short and fast, which should bring up your 5K times. Adding volume after the offseason should show improvement in your times for longer distances.

tom

Leigh Boyle

vdot testing at a variety of distances is a great way to look at where you fall on the running spectrum (i.e. a runner who's strength is short/brutal efforts or someone who can sit at tempo and run all day that way). personally, I fall into the latter of the two. My 1/2 mary tests always show a higher vdot than my 5k tests and in fact there have been a few 1/2 predicted vdots where I couldn't hold that z5 pace for more than a 1/4-1/2 a mile let alone a 5k.

that's the cool part about the OS set up. You build that top end speed and then use the rest of the season to build the endurance on top of it.

in other words, I wouldn't worry about it at all. focus on the short/fast now and the longer stuff will come later.

bret

I agree that an average over many distances is useful. My 5k race was basically flat and Vdot was 52. Then I did a Half-marathon with some hills and my vdot goes down to 48. I think course variability plays a role in vdot discrepancy. Other possible factors are lack of conditioning for longer distances and nutrition issues. I don't need any nutrition for a 5 k but I have a high sweat rate and need fluids on the 1/2 marathon. So my nutrion is always perfect for a 5k but there are oportunities to botch things when the nutrion factor is added. Averaging many races over different distances will probably create a more accurate vdot score for me.

Coach Patrick

The most important thing is that you don't line up on the half marathon starting line ready to run to your 5k vDOT!!! O-U-C-H!!!!