Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
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
Success? Don't know if sub 40 is considered success. Just a mark on the clock. Had some very dissapointing sub 40s in my time. I don't run 10k as often as I used to but my next race is a 10k. Be happy with a sub 40
I think as a general benchmark sub 40 suggests someone is a decent runner, much liker sub 90 half and maybe sub 20 5k. I'm not saying great runner, but solid.
I think that depends on what your wired too. For me sub 90 half came first and most easily. I would now agree a sub 20 5k is probably easiest and with parkrun far more attackable.
hehe, my goals are sub 30, 60 and 2 hours
Yes but hm is a different type of pain and as equivalent level to 10k, a far more comfortable type of pain.
This my friend is the greatest "relative" debate ever and depends who you mix with. Also depends on your age and time running.
Sub 40 10k.........pah
sub 90 half marathon.......don't care
what EVERYONE asks me is:
marathon, how far is that? Wow.
I quote a time.......no interest
did you run London.....no............oh right
conversation ends
Stevei G- I appreciate that it is entirely relative to a number of concepts, but if you read the tag line of any number of threads on this site, its what most people who ask about how to hit a time, want to achieve. I would say that for the vast majority of runners there is an appreciation that if someone can hit those times they are an adequate runner.
I appreciate that it i relative to who you are talking to. No doubt if you were to ask Alan Hansen if Robbie Savage was a good footballer, he would say he was a complete donkey, which of course is completely untrue!! I would like to think that a 35 min 10k runner would still be able to appreciate that a 39 min runner was still decent.
Jason- I had friends last year running som completely insignificant marathon and on a number of occassions they would be asked how far 'that one' was. It seems that the london marathon is the only one that is 26.2 miles!
DT - you could look at it from the opposite angle and notice that there are a LOT of runners on here asking how to get to a sub 50-minute 10k or a sub 1:50 half, times that you would find easy. Sub 4-hour marathon is another very popular goal, and a massive benchmark for lots of people.
'Adequate runner' would be a great slogan for a t-shirt though.
Oh- and just to clarify, the figures stated are for men. Obviously if a female can hit those times then they are beyond adequate!!
Yes, almost like receiveing a county vest or something. Each time a runner in an affiliated race hits that time for the first time and joins the club, UK athletics present them with a t shirt with that emblazoned across it
We could suggest it to parkrun - along with the 10, 50 etc. shirts they could give people with a sub 20 min time a free 'ADEQUATE PARKRUNNER' shirt.
We could be onto something here. I wonder how many different individuals each year go sub 20 for first time. In my local partkrun a sub 20 time will get you a top 5 finish quite regularly and its routinely familiar names so i wager its not a regular event.
Out of interest, do parkrun actually give out t shirts for 10 and 50 runs? I see they put the badges on the individuals profile for results etc but assumed that was it.
hmm. Toying with the mcmillan App, I seem to find that
-a 20.0 min 50 implies 41.5 10k, 1:32.5 HM
-19.5 5k = 40.25 10k, 1:30 HM
-19.0 5k = sub 40.0 10k, 1:29 HM.
ie sub90 HM easier than sub 40 10k maybe (?) However, I've only cottoned onto the need to build up my weekly mileage and have so far found it easier to hit 5k predicted times than the longer ones.
A typical week for me is 40-50k running, 20k walking, 3-5k swimming.
my recollection is that a 19.15 5k gives a 39.59 10k. Even taking into account speed v endurance bias etc, the most attainable of those 'targets' is the sub 20 5k.
Funnily enough, the sub 20 5k is the only one I have not managed.
If you look at the page for a particular parkrun there's a list of the fastest 500, the stats down the bottom tell you how many different people have run that particular parkrun. E.g. for Eastleigh 364 different people have run sub-20 and there have been 3972 different runners.
I think what counts as "good" is pretty subjective. I came 8th out of 107 in my local parkrun on Saturday, which makes me feel like I'm pretty quick. But on the other hand I ran a Hampshire Road Race League event and I was only just inside the top 3rd, which makes me feel pretty average.
Unfortunately then Literatin, whilst I am satisfied with your adequacy and competance over longer distances, you have to carry the burden of being a less than adequate 5k runner
.
Unless of course you have never actually run a 5k?
Tom- I wholly appreciate the subjectiveness of the concept, however any subjective measurement has to be capable of objective benchmarking. I have completed halfs and finished in the top 2%, but a week later turned out at a xc event and finished in the bottom 50%. But then there were runners at that event way beyon adequate, bordering on exceptional!!
DT19 how many run at your parkrun? A sub 23 would likely get you a top 10 at Margate whereas you may scrape the top 100 at Frimley. Sub 20 might get a top 30 at Frimley.
I hate to think what you'd need to run at Bushy to get top 10!
I have only done it twice, but from that and looking at this weekends results, around 140. Last time i ran it was in 19.23 and that got me 5th. It also places me 100th on fastest 500 list. Sub 20 stretches to 145th place on it. If i did canon hill where upto around 500 turn out i might just scrape a top 30 and would need to run sub 19 to make fastest 500!!
DT - I've done one. Not my best performance, though I'm still 65th in the fastest 500.
I suspect that relatively few people do the pure aerobic base work that longer distances must need, and that 5k is short enough that you can gut your way through the last KM or so more anerobically, if you are so inclined.
So for most folks, the 5k target is the easier to hit than whatever macmillan would suggest for the HM one. If you look at people who have properly trained for the diatance ( a smaller, more experienced group than the general population of 'people who run a 5k from time to time') you may get a different picture - factors like whether you are built for long- or middle- distance come to bear.
, still not gone sub 40 though for 10k but the last was a few months before ( 41:05) but I am closer to 40 now I think.
Yes, that makes perfect sense
Sorry Im agreeing the 10k time is the most difficult to achieve of the 3 for me .Cant edit above post
19:19 5k
1:30 half
41:05 10k
For me. it was like stepping stones across a river: 5k (July 2013) led to 5m, then 10k and finally the HM under 90 mins - last three all in Sept 2013.
I guess it just depends on how you build it up - I for instance ran a high number of consectutive 5k's (parkruns hard) and one day went from 20:09 to 19:40 in one bound. Previously I had been peppering the 20:09 for about six months but never breaking through, then bang, smashed it.
Mercifully, I have gone sub 20 since!
I had two 10k's in the 40:xx's before breaking through and my previous HM PB was 1:34:xx before getting it down to 1:28:58.
For my next trick: carry that speed twice as far into a marathon which is now "weak" by comparison - the joys of setting a PB, you have to go back and recalibrate everything (well, I do)!