Right now my recent 5k time is 16:06 and I feel like I'm ready to break 33 minutes for 10K. Just wondering if anyone has broken 33 minutes without breaking 16 minutes in the 5k.
Right now my recent 5k time is 16:06 and I feel like I'm ready to break 33 minutes for 10K. Just wondering if anyone has broken 33 minutes without breaking 16 minutes in the 5k.
My track PR's from college days (12 yrs ago) were 15:54 and 33:00 (in the same season). So I would think you are close. What is your best 10K?
A couple of years ago ran a 16:11 and then followed the next week with a 33:03, both solo efforts. You can do it.
Got a buddy who's run 32:50, w/ a 16:00 flat 5k. Although, he actually ran 16 flat for the first 5k of the 32:50 run. Capable of 15:30, but never put one together.
these guys are all correct. But if you're doing it on the track, it's probably a toss up.
In a good race in good weather, you could probably do either on any given day. (both is unlikely, however)
If you do the math, a 33:00 would be a little less eight seconds per mile slower than your 5k pace. Sounds tough, but good luck.
on average how much would you add to your 5k mile pace to get your 10k mile pace?
For a 30'+ 10,000m runner, right around 11-12 seconds.
You guys can kick me out for being too slow if you want, but it seems like you are thinking that 10k time should be 2 x 5k time + 1 minute or more.
I have 5k best of 16:39 but have run 33:48, 33:50, and 34:06 which all fall under the 2 x 5k + a minute projection. According to that formula I should have run no faster than 34:18 for 10k.
Clarence wrote:
Right now my recent 5k time is 16:06 and I feel like I'm ready to break 33 minutes for 10K. Just wondering if anyone has broken 33 minutes without breaking 16 minutes in the 5k.
pr's: 5k - 15:38
10k - 32:09
JRH wrote:
You guys can kick me out for being too slow if you want, but it seems like you are thinking that 10k time should be 2 x 5k time + 1 minute or more.
I have 5k best of 16:39 but have run 33:48, 33:50, and 34:06 which all fall under the 2 x 5k + a minute projection. According to that formula I should have run no faster than 34:18 for 10k.
I'd buy into a non-linear model. For faster runners, multiplying by two and adding a minute often works because this is equivalent (for them) to adding 10% (the physiolgy of O2 consumption happens to work out this conveniently) rather than 60 seconds. So while 14:00 and 29:00 are 4:30 and 4:40 pace respectively and also conform to the "add-a-minute" concept, a mid-packer running 25:00 for 5K would likely be closer to 52:30 than 51:00 for 10K. Actually, slower runners tend to lose a little more than 10% because they're often not as well-trained or as efficient.
Older runners and women often show closer 5K/10K pace correlation because these folks are usually relying much more heavily on endurance than raw muscular power (read: speed).
Roland Berrill wrote:
JRH wrote:You guys can kick me out for being too slow if you want, but it seems like you are thinking that 10k time should be 2 x 5k time + 1 minute or more.
I have 5k best of 16:39 but have run 33:48, 33:50, and 34:06 which all fall under the 2 x 5k + a minute projection. According to that formula I should have run no faster than 34:18 for 10k.
I'd buy into a non-linear model. For faster runners, multiplying by two and adding a minute often works because this is equivalent (for them) to adding 10% (the physiolgy of O2 consumption happens to work out this conveniently) rather than 60 seconds. So while 14:00 and 29:00 are 4:30 and 4:40 pace respectively and also conform to the "add-a-minute" concept, a mid-packer running 25:00 for 5K would likely be closer to 52:30 than 51:00 for 10K. Actually, slower runners tend to lose a little more than 10% because they're often not as well-trained or as efficient.
Older runners and women often show closer 5K/10K pace correlation because these folks are usually relying much more heavily on endurance than raw muscular power (read: speed).
It is true that I ran those times as a masters runner (male), but I can't think of anyone, including masters runners and women, who have a closer 5k/10k pace correlation--only 4-7 seconds per mile difference. If I go to my 2nd best 5k I can find ten 10k races that are under the 2 x 5k + 1 minute projection. I don't know whether to complain about lack of power/speed or be happy that my times don't drop of much when I add distance (this only holds up through half marathon--full marathon pr gets same lower score as 5k).
Yes. But only because I never ran a 5K race until many years of running sub 33 10Ks. I did break 16 easily while not really training when I finally did run a 5K.
Why didn't I run 5K? I didn't run in college. 10K road races were more plentiful in the early '90s, and I always thought it was not worth the entry fee to run such a short race. Also, 5K's were often the second billing walk/fun run companion event to the 10K. Now 10K seem harder to find.
5K - 15:31
10K - 34:20
My PBs are - way back - 33.00 10k Road and 16.00.8 5k track so right on the money for you. Achieved the (Double + 1 minute)equation by prob doing too little 3k/5k type stuff and more focus on 10k and longer.
33:00 10k and 16:00 5k are pretty equivalent performances. for someone that is stronger than faster, it could be done.
5k- 16:03.3 track 1977
5k- 16:01.6 track 1977
10k- 32:53.3 track 1976
I could probably have bettered the 10k easier than the 5k but only got to run it once a year.
lindsey scherf ~16;10 and 32;51
Just noticed how sh&* my 10k PB is. Shouldn't complain though, result of zero speedwork.
5k 15:59 / 10k 33:56
10k - 32:50 Mobile Azeala Trail '86
5k - 16:04 Marietta, GA Run for Life '91
Road 5k's weren't run as often in the '80's, otherwise I feel sure I would have been sub-16 in '86.