Runners! My first race is coming up in 6 weeks! Should I go for the 10k or half marathon?!

RoxieDawn wrote: »

teetertatertango wrote: »

Seems odd to me to choose your pond so that you can appear to be a bigger fish. On an absolute scale you are the same size fish regardless of who you compare yourself to. You've only been running for 2 months!

You can put your times into the calculator below and see how you compare on a local/regional/national/world class level.

http://www.heartbreakhill.org/age_graded.htm

I have to work on my time. I completed the last one at 2:27:14 and this was a PR.. and my age grade was for 2:14:26..

I have work on this this winter before March to beat my PR but I am another year older..sigh..

Interesting comparison. For my age it has me about 10 minutes slow for HM, based on my last HM which was trail and a week before my last Ultra, so I didn't thrash it.

I'm fairly firmly in the middle of the pack, so quite happy with the forecasting, since it doesn't account for elevation or surface.

blueeyez939 wrote: »

I have been running for a couple months now and want to try running in a "real" race just to see if I enjoy it and to see how my time compares to other women my age. I know I'm not gonna be anywhere near the front of the pack no matter which race I choose.... Lol but I want to pick the one that will have the best chance of me at least not coming in last! So, what do y'all think? I know there is a huge difference between 6.2 and 13 miles.... Lol but when I look at the times of women who ran the same race the last couple years, it seams like the half marathon has a lot more participants and a lot more times that are in the range of my goals where the 10k seemed to be a smaller group and even the slowest times would be pretty tough for me to keep up with.... I just can't decide and with $50 entry fees, I wanna make the best choice! Oh, one other thing! I have never ran more than probably 5 miles at a time, but I don't have any injuries or any body limitations. I have been reading up a lot and read that people with low resting heart rates tend to be better at endurance events rather than speed events, and I happen to have a extremely low heart rate, 30's while sleeping 50's while awake more of the time. So, that's another thing that makes me wonder if I wouldn't be better off going for the half marathon rather than the 10k Would love some opinion :-) thanks!

Depends for what are you working. If you are working more on speed, shorter distance,intervals go for 10 k if you go more for LSD (long slow distance) go for half either way just have fun and enjoy it

lporter229 wrote: »

teetertatertango wrote: »

Seems odd to me to choose your pond so that you can appear to be a bigger fish. On an absolute scale you are the same size fish regardless of who you compare yourself to. You've only been running for 2 months!

You can put your times into the calculator below and see how you compare on a local/regional/national/world class level.

http://www.heartbreakhill.org/age_graded.htm

That's an interesting calculator. I always thought that I had a more competitive advantage at longer distance races, but the calculator ranked me in a higher percentile with my 5K time than my marathon. Who knew?

And I thought my 5k time was much better than my 10k, but they both were exactly the same.

JoRocka wrote: »

Cave_Goose wrote: »

blueeyez939 wrote: »

I know there is a huge difference between 6.2 and 13 miles....

No, you don't "know." You think you know, but there is a huge difference, a difference you have to experience to understand. When your left calf is cramped up at mile 10, and you still have a 5k left to run, it's an entirely different mental game.

Running my second full marathon this weekend, and that goes into an entirely new place. Something about miles 15-18 wants to mentally crush me.

she's an askhole.

asks- but isn't interested in the answers.

I'm pretty sure at this point she posted and ghosted because she actually DIDN"T want answers- she wanted someone to pat her on the back and say- "you go do it honey- you got this ish".

She was off to another venture. it has to do with macros.. I saw it yesterday..

RoxieDawn wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

pondee629 wrote: »

I think that blueeyez939 (OP) lost interest.

she'll show us when she wins the HM in 6 weeks!!!!

Hopefully a photo at the finish line!

I always take terrible photos at the finish line.. One day I am gonna be ready for the photo, I can look like a total geek crossing the line.

I keep saying this, but it hasn't happened yet. I've got a 5k tomorrow, and I know darn well what the finish line photo is going to look like.

RoxieDawn wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

RoxieDawn wrote: »

teetertatertango wrote: »

Seems odd to me to choose your pond so that you can appear to be a bigger fish. On an absolute scale you are the same size fish regardless of who you compare yourself to. You've only been running for 2 months!

You can put your times into the calculator below and see how you compare on a local/regional/national/world class level.

http://www.heartbreakhill.org/age_graded.htm

I have to work on my time. I completed the last one at 2:27:14 and this was a PR.. and my age grade was for 2:14:26..

I have work on this this winter before March to beat my PR but I am another year older..sigh..

Interesting comparison. For my age it has me about 10 minutes slow for HM, based on my last HM which was trail and a week before my last Ultra, so I didn't thrash it.

I'm fairly firmly in the middle of the pack, so quite happy with the forecasting, since it doesn't account for elevation or surface.

I think I can shave of 14 minutes to beat it this year.. today that sounds hard and training in winter is a challenge for me.. I am going with "I think I can, I think I can"..

I don't think I have a whole in me let alone an Ultra.WOW.. I like the word "thrash"..

It was a 12 hour event, 6.2km trail circuit. I managed 40 miles in 9:30 before I folded.

Good fun, and a very different experience. It's kind of an eating and drinking contest with some running thrown in.

lporter229 wrote: »

teetertatertango wrote: »

Seems odd to me to choose your pond so that you can appear to be a bigger fish. On an absolute scale you are the same size fish regardless of who you compare yourself to. You've only been running for 2 months!

You can put your times into the calculator below and see how you compare on a local/regional/national/world class level.

http://www.heartbreakhill.org/age_graded.htm

That's an interesting calculator. I always thought that I had a more competitive advantage at longer distance races, but the calculator ranked me in a higher percentile with my 5K time than my marathon. Who knew?

Age grading has its uses, but it only compares you to the world record (or estimated equivalent) for that specific distance for people of your age and sex. For women, the marathon world record is so exceptionally good that we all get less good age graded scores for it, even if our actual performance is better than for our 5k. But WAVA only calculates one distance at a time for people in your category. If you want to compare your own times at different races, you could try the McMillan calculator (on that, my 5k is significantly less good than my marathon). www.mcmillanrunning.com

ETA: but if you want to judge 'competitive advantage' what you want is ranking lists - my 5k time gets me my best age grading (me compared to the world record), and my half marathon is my 'best' performance according to McMillan (most impressive performance compared to my other races), but my best national ranking is for the marathon, probably because fewer women are racing them.

Maybe partly so. However, OP also mentioned walking for portion of race and thought she could still outperform more runners than in 10k. Possibly lots of walkers in half from the previous year's race? Don't know. But anyone predicting to be in bottom 10% of 10k runners and then thinking she can do better in half is just not thinking clearly.

Cave_Goose wrote: »

blueeyez939 wrote: »

I know there is a huge difference between 6.2 and 13 miles....

No, you don't "know." You think you know, but there is a huge difference, a difference you have to experience to understand. When your left calf is cramped up at mile 10, and you still have a 5k left to run, it's an entirely different mental game.

Running my second full marathon this weekend, and that goes into an entirely new place. Something about miles 15-18 wants to mentally crush me.

For me it's mile 20!

Naija82 wrote: »

Lots of people turn up to race halfs and even full marathons without sufficient training they pay for it. I remember during my first marathon one guy was saying he had only managed 3 miles, I had been training for 4 months and was still worried I wouldn't finish or collapse at some point, I wouldn't have turned up if I had only done 3 miles.

As one of the above posters said you can try to add a few longer runs at a very slow pace and see how you get on, if you really have your heart set on doing it.

No expert here, having just run my first Half Marathon, but:

I trained from June 20 to the race date of September 25. The last 9 weeks of my training averaged between 22 and 32 miles per week, with longs runs of 10,11,12 and 13 (twice). I went in hoping for a 2:30 time, finding it hard to maintain an 11:27 mile pace in my long runs in training.

Now, mixed emotions:

I finished, positive,
I beat my goal time, ran 2:17:10, positive (A personal best, it being my first Half);
I finished well behind in the pack, 186 out of 245, not necessarily positive;
Well behind in my gender group, 122 out of 152, and
Well behind in my age and gender group, 8/10.

All that being said, I came to the conclusion that very few people enter a Half Marathon without being more prepared than many who may enter the shorter races, (Anyone in reasonably good condition can run and finish a 5K) which explains my finishing well back in all groups. I'm usually in the top half of my age/gender group.

Of course, it must be noted, that the results I am referencing do not list DNF'ers. ;-)

Now, don't get the idea that I'm less than pleased over my result, I'm probably too happy and proud over finishing the silly thing and beating my goal time. Truth be told, I am very likely to tell anyone who will listen about my run. It's just that my limited experience tells me that only those taking the race, and the training therefore, seriously finish.

TavistockToad wrote: »

Cave_Goose wrote: »

TavistockToad wrote: »

pondee629 wrote: »

I think that blueeyez939 (OP) lost interest.

she'll show us when she wins the HM in 6 weeks!!!!

Mmm...the silence is deafening.

@blueeyez939 did you win?!

OP hasn't logged in since Sept 29th.