Run-Down Forums

[Runner2k]

Hey,
For a 2 mile race, how would you recommend me to pace myself. I see a lot of guys start out almost full speed, take the early lead and finish first. If I try this, I am afraid that I will burn out early and finish slow. When I start out slow, It is very hard for me to catch up. I know my biggest problem is that I have to train more and get faster. But aside from that, what is the best way to run 2 miles? I appreciate all suggestions.

[Micah Ward]

I have always believed in negative splits. Run your first mile comfortably hard and your second mile faster.

[Dan]

As you get accustomed to the distance, you will find it easiest to hold a consistent pace and cut down slightly as you go. It's too long of a distance to burn it up early, assuming the pace is faster than you're ready for.

Dan

[graeme]

The best advice I can give as far as pacing goes is that experience helps a lot. You will probably find that after running it a number of times you'll develop a prefered way of pacing yourself. I like to keep a pretty consistant pace most of the way and speed up near the end, so I agree with Micah about the negative splits. But whatever your strategy is, you need to know your ability. That's where experience is so important.

[Runner2k]

Thanks for the advice guys.

[Distance_Guru]

Be patient. Run the early portions of the race conservative, remember if you atart out to slow you can always speed up later, if you go out to fast all you can do is get passed.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

Ahem, what about that cross country advice a while back?

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

He asked for advice in running the two mile not about cross country. Two completely different races. You aren't going to get into a 2 mile race on the track where you have 200 runners and you have no way of knowing where you are. In cross you must get out in order to know where you are and what you need to do. On the track you always know where you are and therefore it requires different tactics.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

True, but the distances are fairly similar, so physical ability should be just as important in pacing considerations as overall race tactics.

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

You said the magic word "tactics" that is the biggest difference between cross country and track. On the track the only thing there is to worry about is the other runners and maybe wind. On the cross country coarse you have the fact that the fields are ten times as big as on the track and the coarse with it's terrain features that can make a very small gap very big in a hurry. That puts a premium on being in a postition in the lead group early on so that you can moniter any moves being made by other athletes. The only way you can finish high in a cometitive cross counrty meet is to be in a good position early.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

I agree with your basic premise, but I think it's a mistake to color track racing as significantly less tactical than cross country. I believe that line of thinking is a major reason why so many cross country standouts are fairly average on the track come spring and get beat by people they were well ahead of in the fall. They either underestimate the tactical nature of the "track specialists" or forget to adjust their own xc strategies.

Dan

[Distance_Guru]

Of coarse the same could be said of top track athletes running realativly poorly during cross country season. I really feel that how a distance runner performs in cross country and track realititive to each other is based on two main factors, training and interest. A lot of athletes really gear for track and use cross country as preperation for track. Others consider cross country their favorite. And when two things are equal in every other way you will almost always do better in the one that you like more. Also training is a big part of the equatition. If you have an athlete that trains hard over the summer, runs cross country then plays basketball in the winter then goes out for track because of the preperation he will be better in x-c than for track. Which can explain many of the high school kids that do well in x-c and not as well in track.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn

[Dan]

I tend to think people prefer whichever of the two disciplines they are better at, but that gets us into a rather circular argument.

Dan

[Hammer]

I tend to agree with DG's last couple of posts. I would run the 2 mile totally different from a 5k XC race. Most of all because of the size of the race. Big XC meets usually have +150 and their is a definite need to get out fast and get out of traffic. 2 mile races rarely have +20 and that gives the runner a better chance to pace one's self.

[Distance_Guru]

Hammer, I thought you'd dropped off the planet. Or gone on one of those trans-America races with no internet access, glad your back.
_________________
Time is the fire in which we burn