Is a sub-60 10-miler that hard?

I agree with Dad, you aren't aerobically developed enough to run sub 60

Try to run a negative split, but not by much. First 5 miles in 30:25 or so.

Fugue wrote:

I agree with Dad, you aren't aerobically developed enough to run sub 60

Sure he is. His other times indicate that.

4:50 miler 25 miles a week wrote:

CoachB wrote:

, unless you have a naturally very high anaerobic threshold and very good natural endurance, your training won't allow you to break 1 hour.

I hope you don't actually coach.

I do.

The ability to run sub 60 requires someone to be able to run 6:00 per mile for an hour. A kid who has trained as an 8/16 runner can run 4:45 due to very high lactate tolerance without developing the capacity to cruise at 6:00 pace for an hour.

The fact that his tempo efforts are right at 6:00 pace leads me to believe that he hasn't yet developed the ability to run 60:00 yet.

You would think that based on those times and workouts you would be comfortably under an hour, and some people would be. The reality is that most however wouldn't. You'll find sub 6's easy for about the first 6-7 miles. The next 3 separates those with endurance from those with speed. You'll find out pretty quickly what group you're in. Based on what you wrote I would expect that fastest you would go would be 57, a realistic finish of 60 and possibly as slow as 63-65 if you have an off-day.

first of all, "is a sub 60 that hard" is an absolutely ridiculous question. for nearly every human being on the planet, it is impossible. for probably 60-80 percent of this letsrun message board, it is impossible. for someone in shape to run 55 minutes, it's easy. for someone in shape to run between 58 and 61 or so minutes, it's very hard. see how the question doesn't make much sense?

that said, assuming you mean "is it hard for me", you don't provide nearly enough detail in your workout logs. a 33:45 "fartlek" run, for example, means absolutely nothing. a fartlek could be anything. you could be running 800s in 2:15 and then going easy for 800 in 4:15 and run around that time for 5 miles. it's absolutely impossible to predict anything based off of that, except that you're capable of running 6:30ish for 5 miles.

the hill workout also tells us nothing. what's the gradient of the hill? sounds like a productive workout, but meaningless in terms of predicting fitness unless you could compare your times now against your times in the past before a previous 10 mile race.

the only things that are indicative of your actual fitness are your 4:45, 2:10, and 17:55 3 mile tempo. if your 3 mile tempo was a true "tempo" effort - that is, you finished feeling out of breath but as though you could continue at that pace for some time, then there's a chance you could run close to 60 minutes.

if your endurance and aerobic systems are of comparable fitness to your anaerobic systems, your 4:45 indicates you could run anywhere from 58 flat and up.

i knew a runner in college who was a 4:41 miler. a week after that mile PR - which was a good race for him - he ran a 9:00 3k. a few weeks after that he ran a 32:20 10k. if he raced a 10 miler, he would've run in the 53:30 range. he had no speed, but a lot of endurance.

it's impossible to know how your 800/1600 will translate to your 10 mile until you a) run the race or b) do much longer tempo runs/threshold workouts.how many years have you been running? do you run high mileage? how consistently? where are you in your training program? do you have a 5 mile or 10k PR? these are the things we would need to know to make any kind of accurate guess. anything else is BS.

i wouldn't be shocked if you managed to run 59:59, or even snuck under 59.. but i also wouldn't be surprised if you ran 1:04 or slower. the latter is more likely.

Fartlek: unstructured, I pick a time and run at a hard effort for that period of time, then go back to an easy effort for a similar period of time, I don't track pace of efforts, just overall distance and time. For me it will be slower than a tempo of a similar effort. Ex: 3min on (5k effort), 3min easy, 1min on (fastest, maybe mile effort), 2 min easy, 2 min on (2mi effort maybe), 2min easy, 5 min on (slightly faster than tempo effort), 3 min easy, etc.

Sorry my training isn't good for predicting. I'm base training for xc. If it was easy to figure out how fast I could run for 10mi I wouldn't have started the thread.

I provided 800/1600 because I knew they were my best times and could provide an indication of how speed or endurance oriented I was to the more experienced on here.

I ran my PRs off of about 18 months of 25-35 mpw. I am now at 50 mpw. Sorry, but no longer PRs, although 2:10 and 4:45 in this calculator does give me a 36:03 10k estimate:

CoachB wrote:

4:50 miler 25 miles a week wrote:

I hope you don't actually coach.

I do.

The ability to run sub 60 requires someone to be able to run 6:00 per mile for an hour. A kid who has trained as an 8/16 runner can run 4:45 due to very high lactate tolerance without developing the capacity to cruise at 6:00 pace for an hour.

The fact that his tempo efforts are right at 6:00 pace leads me to believe that he hasn't yet developed the ability to run 60:00 yet.

When I saw the 3m tempos at 6m pace I thought the same thing.

I actually think he'd get through 6-7 miles on target pace feeling good but it would unravel rapidly in the last 3 miles or so.

observer_of_things wrote:

CoachB wrote:

I do.

The ability to run sub 60 requires someone to be able to run 6:00 per mile for an hour. A kid who has trained as an 8/16 runner can run 4:45 due to very high lactate tolerance without developing the capacity to cruise at 6:00 pace for an hour.

The fact that his tempo efforts are right at 6:00 pace leads me to believe that he hasn't yet developed the ability to run 60:00 yet.

When I saw the 3m tempos at 6m pace I thought the same thing.

I actually think he'd get through 6-7 miles on target pace feeling good but it would unravel rapidly in the last 3 miles or so.

Observer of things you might be right in your assessment although I would note three things: 1) the tempos weren't right at six minute pace, they were slightly below 2) Assuming what the Op said about "easy tempos" was accurate you may be putting too much stock into what the tempos indicate about his fitness (of course many youngsters often run too hard on their tempos so...) 3) I think we're all forgetting about the temperature here when it could be important. Remember, OP does his workouts when it's hot outside (maybe OP is not the brightest), and the race scenario is 70 degree weather, like 25 degrees cooler than he says his workouts are.

Well, the first thing I see is that the 800 isn't blazing compared to the 1600. In this case that's a point in your favor, as it suggests that the 4:45 isn't coming from massive FRC/anaerobic capacity.

Taken with the tempos, if you're being accurate and fair about there difficulty, suggests to me the aerobic engine is physically there to do so. Likely your threshold is somewhere between 5:50-6:00 pace on good, flat terrain.

Either way, the concern is going to be fatigue resistance, which other people have touched on. Some people can run at threshold for 35:00 before fatigue sets in, others over an hour. Training definitely plays a role in that, and you don't seem to have longer volumes of training around or at threshold.

My guess is that you'll get through the first miles in somewhere around 35:30-36:00, but slide towards 6:20-6:30 pace over the next 4 miles and finish somewhere around 61-62'. Unless you do something stupid you'll easily smash your dads prediction, but with the limited information I think if you go sub 60 you either have some naturally huge fatigue resistance (less likely) or truly doing those tempo's very easy, and probably have a threshold closer to 5:40; and thus looking towards 4:30/16 flat in season.

My only other advice to the original poster is as follows:

1. Get a new username if you're going to continue to post on letsrun.

It makes you sound like a geek to the extreme.

Sure, I was a bit of a geek in high school. I over analyzed my training to the

extreme. I even posted on lets run occasionally. But when it came time to

running a 10 mile road race, I just ran it. I wasn't worried about my time.

I cared more about my track times and you should too.

2. Just train. You still have two full years of high school ahead of you. That's a lot of time to improve. A lot of time. You could be running in the mid 1:50's by your senior year and a 4:15 mile or better, though perhaps 2 flat and a 4:30 mile are more realistic goals, given your current PR's.

Remember, anything is possible. Remember that. It all depends on how driven you are and disciplined you are. You could start doubling.

Get into a routine and stay focused. You'll be surprised at what you can accomplish.

As a young high school coach in Florida in the mid 1970's, I regularly sought the counsel of Brent Haley at Largo High School. He usually had 10-15 (or more) runners put in 1000 miles over the summer. He routinely had three to five milers under 4:20 in a season, three to five 880 (yes, 880) guys under 1:55, and a horde under 9:30 for two miles. Routinely had who knows how many under 15 minutes for 3 minutes in CC.

Any doubts of what I say, check with Marc Bloom of the Harrier, or any of the archives.

Enough of the credentials.

Brent told me in 1977, "When they can run ten miles under 60 minutes, then they are ready to start training."

This was in Florida, currently the wasteland of high school distance runners.

Coincidence, that this was the heyday of the Florida Track Club?

I guess in those days no one knew you could only do this stuff in the north, or west.

not true when you are a high school or youngster like this guy though.i ran a 1:55 / 4:27 mile / 16:20 5k my senior year or high school and raced a couple 10k's the summer after and the best i could do was 35:10the next summer i was running around 33:30, but had a season of D1 xc in me and was running more than 30 mpw young guys have almost no aerobic ability when running low mileage. At 35 yrs old, a 4:45 mile is very hard now, but I can run under 1:13 in the half marathon. i raced 4:28 in a road mile this summer but 56 minute 10-mile training is way easier than the mile training. i ran 4:08 in collegebodies change. it sucks

Trashman wrote:

I would argue that a 4:45 mile is significantly easier than a 56 minute 10 miler. I suggest running a 10K to not only work on your pacing, but to help gain a better sense of your strength endurance.

Is there something stopping you from running 10 miles and timing yourself?

CoachB wrote:

4:50 miler 25 miles a week wrote:

I hope you don't actually coach.

I do.

The ability to run sub 60 requires someone to be able to run 6:00 per mile for an hour. A kid who has trained as an 8/16 runner can run 4:45 due to very high lactate tolerance without developing the capacity to cruise at 6:00 pace for an hour.

The fact that his tempo efforts are right at 6:00 pace leads me to believe that he hasn't yet developed the ability to run 60:00 yet.

You should stop coaching then.

The ability to run a 4;45 mile also contains the ability to run 6 minute miles for an hour.

You apparently have no idea about the range of crossover an athlete should have even without specific training.

probably not wrote:

breathtaking stupidity wrote:

36:00 10k is MUCH better than 60:00 10-mile.

36:00 for 10K is 5:47 pace (just under 58 if you held that pace for 10 miles, which you can't). Most people who could run that for 10K would be really, really close to 60 minutes. Youngsters like the OP would probably lack the endurance to go under.

I can do 33 and 55 actually so lol

probably not wrote:

breathtaking stupidity wrote:

36:00 10k is MUCH better than 60:00 10-mile.

36:00 for 10K is 5:47 pace (just under 58 if you held that pace for 10 miles, which you can't). Most people who could run that for 10K would be really, really close to 60 minutes. Youngsters like the OP would probably lack the endurance to go under.

Agree

Even when you are an experienced 10 miles can be a tough distance. You can get away with a lack of endurance a lot more for 5-10km distances.

You don't seem to be doing any longer intervals in training as well?

hand in your certificate wrote:

The ability to run a 4;45 mile also contains the ability to run 6 minute miles for an hour.

Not sure about this. For an average mid-distance guy like me, a 4:45 mile is no big deal, but running 6 minutes miles for an hour is extremely hard. In my experience, I can (barely) do it, if I train specifically for the event, but off mid-distance training, when I can cruise a 4:45 mile, there is no way in hell I can clock a 60 min 10-miler.

I think it would be physically possible for you to run 10 miles under 60, but I would not want to place a large bet on your doing it on your first try if you have never raced a 10K or longer, mainly for psychological reasons. With some more experience racing longer distances, I think you probably could do it, even if you told us your training and PRs were identical to what you just said. And hell, it's not out of the question that you might right now. It just strikes me as pretty unlikely that you'd run that fast on your first try without any experience racing that kind of distance.