UKC

I've been challenged to run a 10k in under 40 minutes.ideally within one year. I'm quite fit play football, cycle and i'm in the gym most days. I have plenty of time to get put towards my goal.

I have no idea where to start, or if my goal is realistic within my time frame?

In reply to goldmember:

Age?

In reply to Run_Ross_Run: 27 pal

In reply to goldmember: It's an almost impossible to say based on just the info you give. I know some who almost immediately on starting running went sub 40 and others who despite hard focused training struggle to get anywhere near it.

I'd suggest for a couple of months you just slowly build up the volume, at first until you can comfortably run something like 6-8k at an easy pace without feeling trashed afterward. Then give a parkrun or other 5k a go at race effort. That'll give you a benchmark that'll help see if your target is feasible or not.

In reply to goldmember:

Whether or not it is realistic depends on a number of factors which you haven't mentioned in your post but that doesn't really matter. The challenge is basically to see how fast you can run 10K in the next 12 months and if that's sub 40 then great. How much you can train specifically towards this without getting injured (the biggest obstacle to you being able to improve) again comes down to a lot of things! For example how much exercise to you exactly do in a week and at what intensity? The simplest thing to suggest is that your try running a parkrun (5K, free to do, available at a park near you - google it) and see what time you run. At that point, if you feel ok you can either also do a 10K to get a baseline (but you can work out 10K time from 5K) and/or find your nearest local road running club and join in with their training nights and take their advice. If you really want the advice of strangers over the internet then you are going to have to share a bit more. Hope that helps!
Ps - some people run 4 times a week and never run under 40mins for 10K whereas other people off football training/cycling have run under 40mins first time out. This does really help though as everyone is different.

In reply to Liam M:
darn it - must type faster!

In reply to goldmember:

Go and run one and a 5k and see how that goes. You need to start somewhere

In reply to goldmember:

40.02 was my best, but I was over 40 then. Get out there, train, you might just beast it and nail a sub 35.

In reply to goldmember:

It sort of just depends.. I ran sub 40 pretty quick... I think first 10k, but it hurt and I was competing a lot in other sports.

Its very very possible, just depends how much you want to train and how fit you are now..

In reply to goldmember:

A year is a very realistic timescale if you have some degree of running ability. Some people will never do it despite good general fitness.

I have always run a little bit, but never seriously until my mid 30s. I entered a local 10k and was very disappointed with my time of 50.39, so joined my local club the next day and started training fairly seriously (5/6 days, 40 miles a week, some basic speed sessions). Within 3 months I was racing 5k most weeks and my times were falling, sub 22, sub 21, after 6 months sub 20, then low 19s. I raced another 10k after 8 months and ran 39.55, I also did a half marathon two weeks after that and ran 1:28.06. One big factor between the two 10ks was weight loss (about 8kg) as well as improved running efficiency and improving my ability to push myself.

It took me a couple more years of hard training to take a couple more minutes off my 10k PB. I tend to think people have a natural level they can get to relatively easily, then the hard work really begins. For me it was sub 40, for others it may be sub 50, sub 45 or for the lucky ones sub 35 or faster.

Go out and run a 10k, or even a 5k and see how far you need to go to break 40 for the 10.

In reply to goldmember:

I've been trying to go sub-40 for years and years. sub 86 minute half marathon but never made it beyond 40:04 for 10k. I'm still trying though. If all of human sporting achievements were ranked, sub 40 minute 10k wouldn't exactly be the pinnacle so sure, it's possible within a year if you train for it.
Go for it, the worst that can happen is you'll get fitter and stronger.

In reply to goldmember:

If you have a basic level of fitness you should be able to hit your target or get pretty near. Park runs are good but ideally you should run the 10k itself and see what happens.From this you will be able to tell if it is your speed or your endurance that you need to work on. It may be a mix of both.
Don't be tempted to do junk miles in training. each run should be designed to either work on endurance, so a 8-10 miler, or speed e.g. a fast 5k or intervals.
Get good shoes, warm up, and stretch. Try and enjoy it, it's a lot of time on your feet if you hate it. Run with friends, join a running club, or run in scenic places.

Good luck!

In reply to bleddynmawr:

What is a junk mile? Especially as a beginner, running efficiency and form come from lots of miles. Doing those fast or at the limits of your endurance will cause injury.

A total beginner shouldn't really do more than 1-2 hard sessions a week at first.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

What is a junk mile?

Heard this before but never really understood it.

I prefer to get out most days than not at all, so even if its psychological beneficial only that's surely a good thing. But aerobic exercise will always be useful to keep your abdominal girth down...

As for the OP pretty much agree with what Nick said above, some people seem to have more natural ability than others. I can run 38 easily, 36xx is my PB but cannot get much quicker, although admittedly it's 18months now since I did a proper 10km.

In reply to Thickhead:

My impressions of 'junk miles' are those runs that are aimless in purpose or effort, those lacking focus runs that don't add anything to what you're aiming for, I think...

Sticking to a schedule and being consistent has been my aim this year.

In reply to Curry:
There is point at which adding miles, particularly at a steady plodding pace is of no use anymore or even decremental. For most people though, this mileage limit is much higher than they think. It's different for everyone, but once the initial experience has been gained it's likely to no be 3 hour sessions a week, which I sometimes see advocated by the low mileage crowd.

In reply to goldmember:

I think for most runners without any health issues that could prevent you, getting below 40 min is quite possible, provided the focus and hard work required is applied.

I have never gone below 40 minutes myself (I have been very close), but I have also not tried hard to do so, mainly because I have focused on other running objectives. I am very confident however that I could find the few seconds I am missing, if I really wanted to and trained specifically for 3 months, and I am by no means naturally talented.

In reply to goldmember:

Some people just cannot run well, they sometimes look as though they should be able to, good size, shape, weight etc. but once they start jogging they are an uncoordinated mess. Sub 40 will probably never happen. Others look a mess, wrong shape, size, weight and then start to run and it all comes together. They will never be great but can be pretty respectable times, I would say I was nearer the latter when younger.

Given some natural ability, you should manage it with hard work, how much work depends on what ability you start with. Certainly achievable, but if you then said can I go sub 35mins (knocking off another 5 minutes say) that could be a much bigger step to take.

In reply to StefanB:

A junk mile is one when you run at a speed that is faster than Lactate threshold and slower than VO2max. At this point you are not targetting any system and as such just tiring yourself out for no gain. Either run slower than Lactate threshold, or faster than VO2max.

I suspect the challenge is because the OP has made a comment about another runners time. 6:30/mile for 6.25miles is fairly hard to do.

In reply to goldmember:

I ran a 42 minute 10k at the age of 32 having not run any distance since I was 17. I did cycle a bit though.

So in summary, 40 minutes should be piss with a bit of training.

In reply to bleddynmawr:

What is a junk mile?

I am in my fifties and try to run 50 miles a week, mostly at a charity shop slow pace, and mostly through runs of around 10 miles each, some of it off road.

I feel good if I exceed my age in miles per week, I feel good if I can set off at 7 am and knock off 9 miles of coast path running like I did yesterday, then do another 10 the next day like I have just done. I feel good if I can do it faster than I have done it before, or put the odd sub 7:30 mile in a long run, and I would feel even better if I could do that for mile after mile, but just doing 50 miles, week after week, seems like a good thing for me to be doing in my fifties.

I don't really regard anything as junk. I mean, you should see me sometimes.... It all gets me outside and keeps me less fat and less unfit. I might though, if I had a specific target, like a sub 40 10 k and limited time to train in. I did 8k on a treadmill at 15 kph pace last year (which is 40:00 for 10k pace), but was about to call for the ambulance before I ended, partly through the boredom of it.

In reply to mbh:



That's not junk then. You're maintaining a strong aerobic base and building capillaries etc.

If you're running fast above lactate threshold you're running counterproductively because your body isn't clearing the lactate efficiently and the lactate is inhibiting muscle growth. Unless you're running very fast at VO2max, at which point you're working on your VO2max, unless you're running even faster at which point you're working on form.

There is just a dead area between lactate and VO2max that quite often people run at thinking they will get better simply because they are running fast. In fact they will get no improvement whatsoever and are simply wasting their time and risking injury.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So how do you increase lactate threshold?

In reply to goldmember:

You'd increase lactate threshold with long intervalls and longish paced runs above threshold, or with a progressive building paced run called a pulk.

My understanding of junk is rather simpler, it's not fast enough to be an efforti, but fast enough to stop you recovering adequately.

One thing to bear in mind if you are an absolute advocate of low milage is that many examples held up either lied, or had a low weekly milage as they didn't bother counting their 5 mile morning runs

In reply to wbo:

That was my point. Long intervals above threshold are below VO2 max, hence being junk miles apparently.

For a beginner, the important thing is to not do too much, too quickly. Just go out and run and make it a positive experience. Habit forming is the goal.

In reply to XXXX:

As opposed to people trying to run 10km at 10km pace, or as fast as they can run 10k, several times a week.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


What point are you trying to make?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That would be foolish... If its what people mean by "junk mile" then that makes sense now, thanks.

So its not, as I initially took it, an excuse to do less miles/low mileage training?

In reply to goldmember:
That isn't what most people would desribe as junk miles tho'. Pointless burnups perhaps, but junk miles are just pointless flogging around, getting in the way of real work.

On the other hand lots of people have run under 30 minutes let alone 40 on only two faster sessions a week, and a lot of general running as once you can run ok then 10k is really a fitness test, you're never running super fast. The modern fashion is to overanalyse running to death

In reply to The New NickB:

The debate had moved on to what junk miles are.

Even slow plodding can be seen as active recovery, or an easy run so in itself a slow run isn't junk or a waste of time. It's a good way of getting lots of miles in the legs.

A run that is neither a threshold or a speedwork session is getting in the way of a threshold or a speedwork session. An easy run is just an easy run and not a problem if it's between two hard sessions.

I think a lot of people maybe call something junk when it isn't.

In reply to wbo:




Think I'll just have to ignore the "junk mile" idea then. I'm somewhat sceptical about it anyway.

I agree with the over analysis bit... For most people, except for the big guns, just running more is the key to lowering times/running faster.

My semi-respectable times were from training primarily (>80%) off road, with a dog, just consistently knocking off 50miles or so a week. Whether I could have gone faster with focused training, intervals/fartlek/running tracks etc I don't know but it wouldn't have been a fraction as enjoyable, which is ultimately what matters.

In reply to DancingOnRock:



No argument with this.


You seem to be contradicting what you said earlier.

In reply to The New NickB:



I'm probably not explaining it very well.

Slow miles is fine as agreed. The problem comes when those slow miles are run too quickly in the belief that quicker is better but as they're not targeting either Threshold or VO2max they're just tiring and pointless runs.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So if, as today, I do 4 hilly miles then try to hit a (for me) hard 7:30 for the flat next 4 before the final hilly 2, rather than coast along at 8:30, I am wasting my time? It certainly feels like I have done something harder.

In reply to mbh:

It depends on what your threshold and VO2max paces are, how often you do that workout and what you are trying to achieve from that workout.

As above there's a lot of over analysis that goes on but simply repeating the same workout day in day out won't improve you to your true potential.

If your 10k race time was 40mins and every other day you ran a 10k in 45mins, it would feel like a hard workout and tire you but you won't get any real improvement. You would never get the 40mins in training. You need to work slightly faster than the 40min pace to get any benefits.

In reply to DancingOnRock:




It's not between LT and VO2max that's the junk region; indeed for an aerobically well trained athlete it may be quite a small pace difference between the two levels.

It's the level below LT but not sufficiently so that adds disproportionately low returns for the amount it tires you out. Even below LT your muscles are producing lactate and is getting them used to running on this lactate. Unless your easy runs are sufficiently slow that lactate production is very low you don't stimulate your body to operate aerobically as much as it can.

It's when you see runners do most of their runs about 20-30s per mile slower than LT that they're doing junk - for that volume of running it's producing much lower returns than running at other paces.

In reply to Liam M:

You are correct. My apologies.

In reply to Liam M:

I'm with wbo, I think people get too caught up in it. Certainly running more provides physiological benefits.. develops a better capillary system, mitochondrial densities, efficiencies etc..

So generally the more miles the better..

But i do think a long of top runners underestimate their mileage by 1 good 25-30%. They just count proper runs. The guy I used to train with did 100k + a week.. but he'd also do 3-4+ miles every day warming up before a long stretch and strength session.. so another 20-30 miles a week.. so he was actually running 80-90 miles a week. His main run was 10-20km every morning. But if you asked him he reckoned he was doing 60..