Are you a sub 40 min 10 K runner? Look here then!

it is all about weight. I used to run 120 miles per week then I realized weight was the name of the game

24 yrs old

5'9

95 pounds

30:05

40 mpw ( all quality, no slogging)

6'2

210

27 years young

39:55

30 mpw with 6 days of crossfit

You are malnourished, man.

statistics nerd wrote:

Maybe I need to clarify once again that it was made on 44 recreational runners, most of them working full time. The times are set on road races (i.e. 10K and not 10 000 m). There are maybe only 3-4 sub elite runners (running low 32 min) in the Swedish material. The runners in the Swedish sample are also pretty old (see me first post).

I'm surprised to see how much people train her (in America?). So if you are a high mileage runner, the estimate might be way off.

Sounds like you are new to letsrun? This dataset is going to average at least a full standard deviation faster than your first due to a lot of selection bias.

The joke is that every letsrunner is a 14:30 5k guy (and makes $250k/yr). While not factually true, it is based somewhat in reality. Easy to see the Letsrun crowd is significantly faster than average with a lot of current and former collegiate runners skewing the numbers. It will be interesting to see how much it changes your model. If you stay with such a simplified linear equation I wouldn't be surprised if it slightly decreased accuracy for the people that fit into your first dataset.

Anyway, my data at time of pr

BMI: 19.8 (6'1 150lb)

Age: 21

mileage: 70mpw (112kpw)

Calculated time: 33:38

Actual time: 31:00 xc

5'10"

153 lb

36:47

50 miles/week

5'10"

153 lb

36:47

50 miles/week

Age = 22

statistics nerd wrote:

If you are a 10K sub 40 min runner, please provide following information:

Height,

weight,

10K time (in min:sec)

average weekly volume (at the time you ran 10K sub 40 min).

5'11

140#

32:17

~70-75 miles per week

5"10

168lb

33:06

45 miles

Height: 5' 4.5" (64.5")

Weight: 112 lbs

Age: 18 yrs

Time: 32:30

Mi/Wk: 70

Now, Age 52:

Height 6'0"

Weight 160

MPW about 40

10K - bang on 40 minutes

Then, Age 27:

Height 6'0"

Weight 150

MPW about 60

10K 32:50

What p-value did the original sample give? Your N was pretty small (statistically; actually rather big for an athletics study), but I get that's why you're trying to increase the sample size through this thread.

The std re: volume was ~50% of median which leads me to think that for this specific purpose, BMI, volume wasn't significantly correlated. I hope we're all at a point where we recognize more volume at an appropriate pace is better than less volume in terms of expected performance. However, given the constraints of BMI, 50kpw could be wholly inappropriate for a runner with a certain height/weight matrix but appropriate for a different runner with a different height/weight matrix who both have the same BMI. i.e. doesn't take into consideration FT v. ST or fat v. muscle ratios.

One suggestion for future work would be to have subjects provide detailed median volume over the prior 4 months to competition, what the delta is compared with prior competitive life training volume, peak volume during the cycle, and cut (taper) volume / cut duration. Then same for weight at each of those characteristics.

There is certainly THE big unanswered question in our sport about the best way to peak / maximize talent. A global survey from a self-selecting population may be the best way to address the issue given current deficiencies in the research. My worry (that's not to say wrong, but should be approached with the appropriate skepticism) is that BMI, like VO2Max, has too much emphasis on weight, which is highly variable. Pushing lower weight to increase these metrics hasn't yet been shown to correlate with improved performance. Leading runners down that path can be an extremely dangerous exercise given the body image pitfalls prevalent in our sport and what it means when reduced weight comes at the expense of reduced muscle mass.

5'3"

119 pounds

35:35 (track)

72 miles per week

27 year old female

31 (at the time)

36:34

182 cms

80 kgs

~45 km/week

5'-10 1/2"

135#

39:37

65km/week

54 years

I think you are asking the right question, but I'd do a least square fit at minimum ( sorry for the pun).

Age : 49

Height : 5'9"

Weight : 155 lbs

Mileage : 80

10k - 38:45

5 foot 7

146 lbs

age 42

55km/wk

38:07

How much more time do you need to calculate bruh?

Omg literally, I done this with a rough guess at my BMI and average mileage, and get in the 34:20's. My pb is literally 34:30, although ironically I've done a 10 mile in 55:36(so my 10k is carp). Interesting how accurate it is tough). I think some day I'll make a better marathon runner. I can hold same paces for longer times.

Height: 6'0"

Weight: 152

10K: 35:35

Volume: 80 km

I think you need to account for age in your formula. Fifteen years ago (23 years old vs 37 years old), I was significantly faster at the same weight and mileage. That said, your formula does seem to work well for middle-aged recreational runners. It was within 20 seconds (35:15 vs 35:35) for a recent race I ran.