Which is more difficult, a sub 15:00 5k or a sub 32:00 10k?

Sub-15 is definitely more difficult. At the time was running 15:03 for 5k, I'd routinely go under 32:00 for 10k, with a best of 31:13 ... three times under 31:20, actually.

Personally, I broke 32, but never broke 15.

dgfhgjh wrote:

If a sub 15 guy cannot break 32 his weakness is his aerobic fitness.

Agreed. That was always my problem.

5,000 - 14:58

10,000 - 32:25

And it gets slower on up from there.

I broke both of those marks, two weeks apart. The sub-15 came first, and required a maximal effort the entire way. The 10k came in a tactical race, in which I basically jogged 22 laps and kicked like crazy the last three. It was definitely easier for me to break 32:00 than 15:00.

Dude, take a chill pill. Its amazing how people just throw around swear words or insults like its nothing. I just expressed surprise that you possibly know that one time was much better. Then you go all crazy.And that other guy calls me a douche. Interesting. I hope you don't talk like that in real life, you might get your ass whipped.

SoSerious wrote:

Nope I seriously wasn't positive jacknut. You had to look it up on a fancy dancy equivalency chart so you must not have known either. I could have done that too, but the running community has better insight than some chart. Oh, I thought it was EXACTLY like comparing a mile time with a marathon time, thanks for clearing that up. :)

So a more realistic question should be which is more difficult a sub 15 5k or a sub 31 10k? Anyone got any experience with this?

Haha I didn't know, hence the thread. Yeah I think douche was a little much. As I just stated, maybe a more appropriate question would be if a sub 15 or sub 31 is more difficult.

A 15:00 5k is equivalent to a 31:00 10k. So, to answer your question, the 15:00 5k is more impressive.

sub 31 > sub 15 > sub 32

(10k time in seconds) ~ (2.1727 x (5k time in seconds)) - 67.04.

That's the linear regression formula based on thousands of real world performances from the world record level to the 18:00 5k / 38:00 10k level. Beyond the high end of that range, the linear relationship might break down and 10k times might be a bit slower than predicted since there are so many "participant" 5k runners who haven't prepared for 10ks. For competitive runners, this formula has been extremely reliable for decades, even many years ago accurately predicting equivalent marks for performances that hadn't yet been run but have since.

Note that regression formulas like this aren't meant to predict what individual runners will do in different events; instead, they are useful for a sample set of runners which is large enough to approach a normal distribution.

So ...

15:00 5k ~ 31:28.4 10k

32:00 10k ~ 15:14.5 5k

Other marks:

12:37.35 WR ~ 26:18.45

13:00 ~ 27:07.7

14:00 ~ 29:18.0

16:00 ~ 33:38.8

17:00 ~ 35:49.1

18:00 ~ 37:59.5

ghost wrote:

Bob Holt (Wimbledon) 13.48/28.39 (double + 1.03)

Mike Fuller (Wimbledon) 14.17/29.22 (double + 48 seconds)

Dave Clarke (Wimbledon) 13.22/27.56 (double + 1.12)

Ghost, as a Wimbledon resident, I am truly delighted that you recognise our suburb's mighty tradition of distance running - historically at least 3x as good as Aldershot, at leas before Mick Woods came along.

Do you have some connection with this neck of the woods?

15 x 2 + 1 = 31

Used to run for Hercules Wimbledon (1975 - 87) and Lauriston Cottage, was the Mecca at that time. I was considered a 'scrubber' with my 15.17 (5000), 32.22 (10,000), 52.00 (10 miles), and 1.50.49 (20 miles) credentials, and of course I was, because at that time, the club was replete with people who could run low 14s and even under for 5000, Holt brothers, etc. and many, under 30" for 10k. You had guys like Steve Badgery - working class hero - who ran 2.15 for the marathon, on solid mileage, but little native leg speed. Guys like Fuller, the Imperial College secretary, who had a relatively light (but oh so effective....) training schedule of 5 miles at lunch and 5 miles at night, progressive runs, sometimes 'eyeballs out' and 10 miles on Sundays. Fuller had amazing range - the man from Foulser Rd, Tooting Bec - had 3.55/8.13/14.17/29.22/1.44 credentials (1500/3000/5000/10,000/20 miles).

All these guys were my heroes, because they worked a full day and then ran every evening, on the Common, and raced every weekend. It is more a hobby jogging culture in the UK now, similar to U.S. with a narrow base elite.

Things have changed now, and the depth is no longer there, although I have noticed that a small 'revival' in standards seems to be taking place. To put things in perspective - back in the 60s and 70s if you ran 52" for 10 miles road, you would finish quite well down the field (in the 30s, 40s, 50s) etc, because those kinds of 10 mile road races would be won in 47 - 49 minutes, with many runner under the 51 minutes mark. Now, no longer the case.

Interesting, why Japan continues to produce incredible depth, despite being a rich First World Economy? Discuss.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

, apply today

ghost wrote:

The standard formula is double your 5000 time + add one minute to find your 10,000 time. So 5000 in '15' is equal to '31' for 10,000.

You see this with sub elite and elite athletes. Your 'typical' 14" runner is worth 29", and your 'typical' elite runner at 13.30" is worth 28.00" or just under or over.

Examples - Bekele 12.37/26.17 (double + 1.03)

Bob Holt (Wimbledon) 13.48/28.39 (double + 1.03)

Mike Fuller (Wimbledon) 14.17/29.22 (double + 48 seconds)

Dave Clarke (Wimbledon) 13.22/27.56 (double + 1.12)

Bernie Ford (Aldershot) 13.26/27.43 (double + 51 secs)

Ron Clarke (Australia) 13.16/27.39 (double + 1.07)

So - the normal forumula of double 5k + 1' is accurate, more or less, a little.

Ghost in Saudi,

http://www.kfupm.edu.sa

, apply today

The far better fit is 96% lap pace.

e.g.

12:37 / 12.5 = 60.56 / 0.96 = 63.08 * 25 = 1577.08 (26:17)

Sure, it's harder to do that math in your head than "add one minute and double it", but the results is far more equal performances (based on a plethora of results, especially elites).

I've run 15:06 and 31:36...sub 15 is harder...at least for me

With 15.06 you have (or had) the potential to run 31.12 (or close). Problem with all of this is that there are far fewer 10,000 races on the track, and you have to have luck to find one at the right time of the year with good weather conditions. There are more opps to run 5000, and your chance of landing good weather conditions are increased.

For that reason there is often a discrepancy for sub elites and ordinary runners (33" +) when it comes to matching their 5000 time for the longer (10,000) distance. Elites, are almost very close to the rule (double + 1"). This is because the elites have the opp to target one major 10,000 every year (e.g. Stanford, Bislet, Stockholm, Helsinki, Hengelo) - although I think many of the Scandinavian 10ks no longer take place.

Ghost in Saudi,

www.kfupm.edu.sa

, apply today

From a guy with very little speed, <15 is definitely harder. I broke 31 for the 10K, but not 15 for the 5K. At least, not yet.

I ran 31:15 and 15:05. To me running under 15 is much harder. It probably has more to do with mile speed than anything else.