Sunday, May 19

St. Matthews Street Festival 5K

Goal: 18:30, but at least sub-19

Since this race was a piggyback afterthought after the half marathon, I didn't really take it seriously. I didn't train very much at all since the half marathon, and I actually decided on the time goal on the morning of the race. I knew I wanted to destroy that old PR of mine (19:11), and that I also wanted to run sub-19 (I'm on that thread on runningahead.com), but I also knew I should be capable of more. McMillan equates my HM time with 18:02, but I knew that was unrealistic for several reasons: it was quite warm and humid, the course was not completely flat (unlike the half marathon), and I did no specific 5K training, in fact I slacked out quite a bit in the last two weeks.

So I was putting on my running gear early at dawn, when my daughter and I were standing at the window (admiring a bunny having breakfast in our backyard), and I asked her what I should aim for, and after a short discussion we agreed on 18:30. (She is 9 years old, but already a runner. She completed her first 5K last weekend in 30:41. I did run with her, but that is a different story. I will write about that later.)

I arrived to the race early enough to have plenty of time for warmup and bathroom breaks. It was 68 F (=20 C), which wouldn't be so bad if the humidity wasn't freaking 87%. Also, let me include the elevation chart of the course right here.

Not too hard, but there are a few rolling hills, and it is nasty that the first mile is the easiest and the last one is the hardest. Regardless, the pre-race preparation went very smoothly, and I actually started to worry a bit about how relaxed I was. You need some adrenaline to run well.

I lined up right behind the start line, and exactly on time the race started. I darted out as usually, but in 100 yards I had to realize that I'm not winning this one: a group of 5 young guys in their 20s went out at 5:30-ish pace, and they looked like they knew what they were doing. I settled to a pace that felt like my VO2 max, and my GPS confirmed the correct 5:40-ish pace. I'm saying correct, because with the elevation profile and the goal, I knew I had to complete the first mile well under 6 minutes. As for position, there was the initial group of 5, and one more somewhat slower (but still clearly faster than me) young guy, and I let 2 bare chested guys in their 40s pass me in the first 1/2 mile. So I was at 9th place.

Mile 1: 5:47

So far so good. Right after the mile marker it seemed like one of the initial 5 had more ambition that ability, and he slowed quite a bit. I passed him right after the mile marker. (I think he ended up running 20:04 - after a first mile that was faster than mine.) But the hills started, and the sun came down hard, and halfway through I started to feel lousy. We made a bunch of turns, and I was running in no man's land. The shirtless guys in sight, but too fast to catch, and nobody behind me that I could see. The end is too far.

Mile 2: 5:59 (technical note at the end about mile splits)

The next mile was pure struggle. It was also the hardest in terms of elevation and turns. I ran my last 5K almost a year ago, and I already forgot how much they hurt. I wasn't 100% in the game mentally, and I forgot (seriously) to use my "out of body" technique. But I did think of my forum pals, and my daughter, of course, how disappointed she would be if I slowed down. I also made sure nobody threatened my position. The shirtless guys were at constant distance of 12-14 seconds ahead of me (that's how we finished), and slowed exactly the same rate as I. One more indication that my slowing was not a result of bad race strategy, but the terrain and the natural slight positive splits that is the optimal way to run a 5K.

Mile 3: 6:07

We turned onto the finish line, and I gave everything. I saw the clock and I knew I was sub-19, but 18:30 has just slipped away. I thought of my daughter when I crossed the line at 18:32 (slightly under 6 minute pace for the kick). Well, that's approximately 18:30, isn't it.

I still think I raced this one well, nearly perfectly. I'm not sure I could have done any better than this. But on a flat course, in 50 degrees, and with proper speed training, I might be able to go below 18 minutes. I still have more than 2 years before my 40th birthday. I actually think of racing more 5Ks, with 70 mile weeks and real preparation. They do hurt, but they are pleasantly short, and very abundant. You can race one seriously every other week. And maybe, just maybe, one day, when coincidentally all the good runners stay at home, I could win an overall at a road race for the first time in my life.

The depth of the Louisville running scene is well illustrated by the fact that 18:32 was only good for 8th place at a local 5K. The winning time was 15:37. I got 2nd in my age group, which would get me an award, but I had no time to wait for the ceremony, because I promised my daughter that I would take her to the Science Center today, so I rushed home. The race was so close to our house that I got home at 8:35, when about a quarter of the participants were still on the course. I will pick up whatever I won probably today (Sunday) before I'm leaving town for a week.

*****

Technical note on mile splits: The marker for mile 1 lined up well with Garmin, but the mile 2 marker was grossly different. At the end the GPS measured the course as 3.04 miles, but I'm rather sure that it was the correct distance and the GPS was wrong. I have several reasons to believe that. 1) The organizing company was a very reputable one. I don't think they got the course certified, but I'm sure they measured it carefully. 2) When I overlay my route with a satellite picture, it diverts from the streets a lot, making me cutting corners by running through buildings. 3) When I ran the course in training, the GPS measured it to be longer. That's actually not surprising. When I run faster, the data points will be farther from each other. 4) Mile 1 was accurate, because it was mostly straight. When we started to make many turns, accuracy went dramatically down.

I knew this while running, so I wasn't too worried about my Garmin splits. And for the purpose of the report, I scaled down 2.11 miles to 2.04 (actual to measured) and divided my measured mile splits by this ratio to get more correct ones. These are the ones reported above.

No comments: