A Good 10k time?

2

Comments

  • IMO there's relative for age, and absolute for time to cross the line. Since I'm older, I like to stick to good for age image For this I use my WAVA. When my WAVA for a 10 km and 5 km passed 70% I was particularly chuffed. Still struggling to get half and mara times into the 70s.

    The guidelines for WAVA comparisons are pretty sketchy, but I've read that 60s can be considered local level and 70s start to get to county level. Do any of the relativists have a clear opinion on this?

  • Hog-mouseHog-mouse ✭✭✭

    My wava was just over 80% last year. I run mostly off road and hilly races. These races always appear to be won by us oldun's. If the really good runners show up then I'm about 10th (female) if they stay home then I can place (1-3). There is usually no vet categories as it's the vets that win the races. I'm not sure why the hilly off road races favour or are favoured by vets. It does appear to be the case though.

    I've run a couple of 'bootleg' races. Very poorly marked, no time keeping, one had three distances yet all the runners finished together so no one knew what race you had just run. Didn't help that a number of runners took a long cut, another group a short cut - complete shambles really. Like Dr. Foster, I didn't go there again.

    I pick my races based on terrain. Some have large fields, other small, I never know which. I do like doing first running of events though. Just because it's something different.

    I'd love to run a sub 36 min 10k, I hate to resign myself to being a plodder. image OK, got to get the zimmer oiled and go training.

    I was just thinking that for me wava appears to be generous.

  • ML84ML84 ✭✭✭

    I was always under the impression that a sub 40 min 10km was of a decent standard. Ive only ever ran three 10k races, one which was around 2005 in preston and i ran 40.11 and came around 40th. My second was in February this year where i ran 36.16 and finished 9th and just recently i ran one in Blackpool in 34.47 (flat course) and came third!!!!

    I'm not affiliated with any club and between the years of 2005 and now ive just ran to keep fit and noticed i was getting quicker. Thought i could maybe get a sub 38, and when i hit that and realised how close to a sub 36 i was i was hooked on breaking 36 mins. I shocked myself when i got a 34.47 as i never thought id get anywhere near that in my lifetime (thought i was going to die after my first 10km). Hoping to join a club soon and hopefully i can further improve. image

     

  • Steve C. wrote (see)

    The guidelines for WAVA comparisons are pretty sketchy, but I've read that 60s can be considered local level and 70s start to get to county level. Do any of the relativists have a clear opinion on this?

    I don't think that can be right. The WAVA thing on Fetch shows me at just over 60% for two recent events, which were 50 mins for a 10K and 4:24 for a marathon. Neither of which can be anywhere near local level, seeing as I'm not quite 40 yet...

     

     

  • I refer you to the World Masters Association FAQ:

    "What’s an age-graded percentage?
    It’s a measure of how high you rank in your own age group — a formula often used in major meets. If you’re classified over 90% — you are world class in your age group. Marks over 80% are national class. Over 70% is regional class. Over 60% is local class. Marks below 60% are for the sainted masters who just love to compete..."

    Give yourself credit where credit is due image

  • I agree with the others...10k times are relative to how serious you are about running, your age, your training etc. Generally I'd say between 40-45 minutes is a good 10k time for the general runner with sub-40 being classed as a real achievement.

  • How do these times vary for men/women?  I'm assuming most of the above posts are referring to times for men - does anyone know what a "good" female time would be?

  • Im 15 and am proud with my 38 minutes!

  • ML84ML84 ✭✭✭
    Cat in the hat - that all depends on your age etc.



    Harry, that's a good time for a lad of your age IMO. I wish I'd stuck with the running while at school instead of smoking and drinking. I'm making amends now though. image
  • The 'good' chicks at my club all run sub 42. A couple of extremely good ones run 35-36. One excellent one has a sub 33 PB from a few years ago now.



    I'd be ecstatic to just get below 45 mins... image
  • A lady running sub 33?  Top 7 in the country this year territory that.

  • It depends what you put in, what age you are etc.



    Sub 40 is a big target for a lot of people and you're doing well to get there.



    No matter what though runners are rarely happy with their times. I have myself down to under 35 and a half and tell myself that if i get 34 i will be happy but i'm not sure i eill be!



    I would love to win a race one day, even a parkrun... At the one i go too there is always one and i have a number of seconds. Some day!!
  • I ran sub 45 today, was very very pleased. The idea of sub 40 makes my head explode, let alone sub 35!

  • It's all about progression with consistency over the years.

    One year you're delighted with a certain time.

    A few years on, you're disappointed, or blaming conditions for a time that was far quicker than what you ever dreamed possible years before.

  • Your base takes a good few years to build. You find this out the hard way against old guys in xc occassionally or up mountains.



    A good time is relative really. If you train right you'd be amazed what you can achieve though.



    One of the joys of running is it's not about what others do - it's about what you do. You run a time then it's your own time you have to beat.
  • tommygunn wrote (see)
    One of the joys of running is it's not about what others do - it's about what you do. You run a time then it's your own time you have to beat.

    So damn true!

  • Run 10k, if you gave your all then be happy with your time.  Run 10k don't give 100% and feel you could have done more be disappointed.  Its all personal.

  • I am running my first 10k in july and have just started training for it.  I have not ran at all for the last 11 years. Am i right in thinking a time of around 45 mins for me (30 years old) would be good?

  • Personally i would be delighted with a 45 min 10k.  My goal this year is a sub 50, currently i'm at 51.48.  Ive been training 4 months so its very new compared to most of the posters on here.  My times are coming down steadily though, my first parkrun in Feb was 26:13 and today i ran 23:28.  It was only a couple of months ago i couldnt work out how i would ever break the 25 min barrier without my lungs bursting!  

    I just aim to beat my PB each time, im happy in the thought ill never be fast enough to be in the mix for prizes etc so for me its just personal pride image

  • I think everything here shows just how subjective it all is.

    Ive been running for a year or less now and i am by no means a natural runner.  I ran a PB (admittedly flat) yesterday at 46 minutes.  I was chuffed to bits.  My 10ks started at around 65 minutes when I started.

    This feels like a good 10k to me.

  • I have my first 10k in 3 weeks (caerphilly 10k), I have been running for 3 months now but varying between once and three times a week.
    My first race was a 5miler and did 41.07, that was very flat compared to where i train.
    I am targetting sub 55 for my first 10k, fingers crossed.

  • DT19DT19 ✭✭✭

    Jamie- if you did 41.07 for 5 miles, thats 8.13 m/per, 10k is only just over a mile further so not a substantial leap in distance to really require a drop off in pace so 55 mins seems a nailed on target, even if it were a reasonably hilly course. I would be aiming for sub 51/52 mins just to challenge myself.

  • a good time is one your happy with...always someone faster.

    a good run is one that you enjoy.

    dont stress about times..your doing great..

  • Hi DT19,

    In training i only managed 44:40 for 5M, race day was much faster.
    I am basing my targets on what i can achieve in training so not be dissapointed, obviously after my first of each distance i will then have a race benchmark to aim for.
    Smashing my training target set based on training is a massive motivation boost.

  • DT19DT19 ✭✭✭

    Hi,

    I would base my race expectations/goals on my race times not training times. As i said above there is very little between a 5 miler and a 10k so no reason not to hit the same paces. I usually come in about 2-3 minutes short of race times in training despite feeling like i have given maximal effort.

    As you say, you will get your benchmark at the first one you do and can develop it from there.

  • HellywobsHellywobs ✭✭✭

    I think it is subjective but it kind of depends on the event, as someone else has mentioned.  I'm not particularly fast (10k PB 46:30) but have picked up a few age category prizes along the way as well as team prizes (helps to have team-mates who can run 10k in sub 42 (on a day when the Great South Run took many of the better local runners away) and half marathons in sub 1 20!).  I ran a 5 miler on Sunday and was 10th lady with just over 38 minutes.  In a club runners only event I am lucky to finish in the top third, so it totally depends on who turns up.  In a charity event I came 3rd.  I've even managed a first lady finish in a parkrun, but was much slower than the usual winning time for that particular event.

    I think anything under 45 is very respectable for a lady and under 38 minutes starts to look semi-elite and you should be able to get a podium finish at many events, if not the high profile ones.  I notice that only one lady has run sub 32 so far this year in UKA events.

  • Hi, Completed the Caerphilly 10K yesterday, was fairly hilly but managed 49:44.

    My benchmark is set now, so will look to keep improving. Next target to get my 5k to sub 25 (currently 25:08).

  • I've run 42.01 twice, both times in my late 40s, which is annoying! I'd be very very pleased to get under 42mins. I did a hilly 10k yesterday at Polesen Lacey in Surrey, which took me 48 minutes - I was the sixth MV50 to finish, which I considered pretty good (the best MV60 did 47 mins, so it's all about expectations!). I was chatting to the winner of the race, who fell over twice but still managed 38 mins, about 90 seconds ahead of second place - he claimed to have run 31 mins at age 37, which sounds very decent for his age.

  • DT19DT19 ✭✭✭

    Age should not be that big a barrier in 40's. There are guys i run with early to mid forties with a long running history who are currently hitting pb's.

    For some inspiration, read this. he didnt start running until he was 37!

    http://www.athleticsweekly.com/coaching/how-they-train-martin-rees/

     

  • Top article that, DT. I do love how they chose such an incredibly flattering photo of Rees with 'effort' phlegm adorning his top lip and running down his chin!

    image 

2
Sign In or Register to comment.