Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Sub 40min 10k
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
There's always a bigger picture to look at. What other activity you do. What sort of job you do. What you athletic background is, etc
Yes I suppose in that context I ran 42 min 10k off zero running when I started running. I just haven't been able to improve greatly on that with running lots!!!
the full story is all so important.
I find a lot of runners are blaggers with what they admit to doing, a bit like the kid at school who did "No" revision yet got top marks. It seems to be a mixture of trying to look better and not wanting to appear to have gone "all out" for their times.
When I hear of someone who has done decent times off low or slack training, I always think, well done, but wouldn't you have preferred to actually made something of your potential?
I recently managed a sub 40min 10k by working quite hard and running 6x a week.
Oh, hang on, is that a crap story?
It's good work Lit.
Although when a young blagger turns up with a "how great am I on such little mileage" type thread, they never quite like the answer of how to get better...
Work hard and consistently for a high amount of years on end!
What about scot edgington though??? He seemingly did nothing but dabble to hit a 17.xx parkrun.
It seems to me its possible to get respectable times off bare training is low 40's but if you want to Get below 40 and stay there with progress then hard consistent work is needed.
DT - don't forget it also depends how good you are at running in the first place. Some people don't have to work at all for sub 40 mins but still have to work to improve on wherever they start off from.
But that then takes it full circle as if you are naturally a good running then you can post such times with no effort. Just like the naturally really clever kid in school who doesn't need to put the graft in.
DT, seemingly Is the word there. Check out his past history. There's some super fast track stuff in there. A 17:xx would be considered slow for someone of his back catalogue,even though it was ages ago.
You are right on consistent hard work being the key phrase, but obviously there's a scale depending on the individual runner.
Do you think Mo Farah was ever doing low 40min 10ks?
Ah right makes more sense now!
The only guy I can hang onto that started low 40's and progressed well, though not world class level, is that Martin Rees bloke. Though you'll probably tell me he was some kind of schoolboy class act.
Plenty of fit youngish men can run sub 40 off little training, but that's not a particularly fast time for a bloke. Looking at the wava table for a 29 year old man to run a 39min 10k is the equivalent of me (FV40+) running 45.46 10k. (unless I've misunderstood the tables...)
is he that guy storming ridiculous times as a 60year old or something?
With those kind of examples you can only ask what he would have been if he'd started younger.
Generally the younger you start the better your top level, especially if you've had a proper track upbringing.
But then on the flip side, would we all be running at these ages if we'd smashed it as teens on the track? Perhaps not.
velloo , not the dreaded WAVA. That never makes blokes under 40 look particularly good!
I think Martin Rees started running in his late 30s...
Stevie but it makes us older women look great!
When i'm 40 Velloo i'm sure i'll be all over it, and telling everyone how amazing i'd have been if i'd run at 18
Yes, he started at 37 with something like a 47 min 10k. There's an article been posted on here a few times that is essentially his story. As a 37 year old myself it gives me inspiration.
He turned 60 this year and his aiming for every world record as v60 from 1500 I think.
Re wava, it actually favours you year on year after 28. I will be 38 in a few months and I think that will get me a 70 wava score now quicker than hard work!!
Athletics Weekly published his training, it's brutal.
» Monday: 8 miles easy.
» Tuesday: Fartlek: 2x4min at 5:20/mile; 2x3min at 5:10/mile; 2x2min at 5:00/mile; 2x1min at 100% (2min recovery between efforts).
» Wednesday: (am) 40min recovery run (6:30-7:00/mile). (pm) 30min recovery run (6:30-7:00/mile).
» Thursday: 8 miles easy (6:30-7:00/mile).
» Friday: Tempo: 8 miles at approximately 5:50/mile (hilly).
» Saturday: (am) 40min recovery run (6:30-7:00/mile). (pm) 30min recovery run (6:30-7:00/mile).
» Sunday: 17 miles steady (6:00-6:30/mile).
http://www.athleticsweekly.com/coaching/how-they-train-martin-rees/#Fl45gaTMAxQxiBqZ.99
I think Rees still runs a 32 min 10k.
Wow, I would have kept quiet if I'd known it was going to lead to such controversy...I was just trying to encourage CM100 who started the thread by asking if it was realistic to run sub-40 off 3 sessions per week. I thought there would be some people saying the same as me and some people saying he should do more - it's all a question of your own experience.
As to the 'mystery' of my 10k times on Power Of 10, yes, that is me on there, but since 2006 I've done 22 x 10k races, so why do they list only 2 of them (do you have to be attached maybe ?). Anyway I ran 38.41 (chip timed) at the Liverpool 10k on 8th October 2006 to satisfy the more suspicious among you.
Seriously, why would anybody lie about their running times ? Surely we're all trying to help each other here...I was just trying to let CM100 know that it's not impossible.
I didn't doubt you Doddsy, what you said mirrored your account.
And simply, PO10 used to only register a result if it was 36.00 or under, until about 2 years ago, so most of yours wouldn't have made it.
Also they have to be UKA as well.
it's why if anyone looks at my account it looks like I started off with a 79min half marathon, rather than the truth which is that was about number 15/16 or something!
Thanks Stevie, that makes sense now.
And I'm jealous of your 79min half, I've only managed 86min, which I guess is where my wacky training method falls down - no long runs.
Of course I was never trying to say my method would lead to faster times, in fact I'm sure the opposite is true, but I just never had the time (or maybe inclination) to follow the 'proper' schedules. If I'm being honest, I wish I'd pushed myself a lot harder when I was younger...
Ian, it sounds like you would have had the talent and potential to run way faster times with more training - for someone like me it just wouldn't be possible without the extra work. So in a sense it's encouraging (as you intended) to say 'yes, it's possible because I did it' but you can't say 'yes it's possible for you because I did it'.
yep, you would have been a lot faster of course, but maybe it suited you in other ways. It's fair to say not everyone could put the time in that I enjoy...
ps that 79 got a fair bit improved..just saying
Don't think anybody has accused anybody of anything unduly here. But I can verify that literatin is a very good female athlete. Very much an elite at County level.
Haha. Only in the sense that the actual elites in my county don't bother turning up to the championships.
Stop going on about 70% this and 80% that and just get out and bloody run.
To back up what Ian is saying, one can get good results with minimum training. From personal experience this can be done but the training is fast paced and the body needs to be able to cope with the training and allow plenty of recovery. Whilst I had results I also god injured which affected the entire summer season and has impacted my winter goals.
The downside is the specificity. Like Ian has had success at 10km but falls apart at HM I trained exclusively for 5km and fell apart at 10km. That said I'm sure you can distance down.
Lit sums is up nicely.