Which PR is more impressive--16:24 5k or 39:31 10k?

5K, by a lot

VDOT difference of 10 points... if you know what that means. 5K is much better

The 5k by a mile. Really.

5K

fdsadsadaf wrote:

VDOT difference of 10 points... if you know what that means. 5K is much better

Never heard of VDOT, can you please explain? I ran that 5k time last summer and the 10k time this past winter and I've run more mileage this summer than ever before, probably averaging 50 mile weeks, so what time should I be able to achieve in my upcoming 10k in September?

Thanks

impressive is kind of a strong word . . .

I didn't realize my 5k PR was that much better (obviously it's still pretty slow, but I've slowly improved my times over the past five-six years and I'm hoping to hit sub-16 soon). If it matters, that PR was run in training shoes and not flats in a road race.

ummmm . . . wrote:

impressive is kind of a strong word . . .

Yes you're right of course, I'm primarily a 1500/800 runner but I really want to set some new PR's this summer in the distances (5k/10k)

With a 16:24 (5K) you should be able to run 34:00ish (10K)

VDOT is explained in Daniels' Running Formula by Jack Daniels great book, it is closely related to V02Max

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

. Approximately, it is the oxygen you consume per minute.

If you want to compare the performance through different indicators check (I like Purdy)

http://tools.runnerspace.com/gprofile.php?do=title&title_id=801&mgroup_id=45577

or

https://www.mcmillanrunning.com/

Good luck!

A good rule of thumb for 5k/10 conversion is double your 5k and add a minute. That'd be about 35:00 for you. So your 5k is way ahead.

ScottEvil wrote:

A good rule of thumb for 5k/10 conversion is double your 5k and add a minute. That'd be about 35:00 for you. So your 5k is way ahead.

35:00?

I am old - 46. I currently run a 16:55-17:20 5K. I still run a 35:55-36:30 10K. The 5K is MUCH more impressive. I cannot run a 16:24 5K. I could run 3.1 miles, stop and sit on a bench, make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, eat it, and still run a 39:30 10K.

How could someone be a sub 17 runner and not know this?

4:48:57 marathon trumps both of those sprint distances

cubefortherun wrote:

I didn't realize my 5k PR was that much better (obviously it's still pretty slow, but I've slowly improved my times over the past five-six years and I'm hoping to hit sub-16 soon). If it matters, that PR was run in training shoes and not flats in a road race.

You must be a troll! No real 16:34 runner would wonder about this comparison.

It really depends on the course used for the 5k and 10kIf the 5k was downhill its not impressive, if the 10k was uphill then it be impressive. But if 5k was on an fair course then its decent.

cubefortherun wrote:

Question in the title.

subfive wrote:

cubefortherun wrote:

I didn't realize my 5k PR was that much better (obviously it's still pretty slow, but I've slowly improved my times over the past five-six years and I'm hoping to hit sub-16 soon). If it matters, that PR was run in training shoes and not flats in a road race.

You must be a troll! No real 16:34 runner would wonder about this comparison.

+1

/thread

ScottEvil wrote:

A good rule of thumb for 5k/10 conversion is double your 5k and add a minute. That'd be about 35:00 for you. So your 5k is way ahead.

Math?