Hi, I’m 30 yo, 37:10 PB on 10k with a training of 70 km/week (45 mi/week). In your opinion what’s the threshold to decide to run around 9-10 h/wk? If you are not talented, it’s useless.
Hi, I’m 30 yo, 37:10 PB on 10k with a training of 70 km/week (45 mi/week). In your opinion what’s the threshold to decide to run around 9-10 h/wk? If you are not talented, it’s useless.
Hate to break this to you but you're not talented (at least from a world, national or state class perspective) you would probably finish in the top 10-20 at local races and achieve middle age glory. Whether you train that much or even keep running is totally dependent on how much fun you have running
It has nothing to do with talent actually!
There are 18:00 5k guys that trot along for 100 miles a week, and there are sub 15 guys that run 35-40 miles a week.
CopperRunner wrote:
It has nothing to do with talent actually!
We should consider the average time obtained by a people of my age running my weekly km
AVfromItaly wrote:
Hi, I’m 30 yo, 37:10 PB on 10k with a training of 70 km/week (45 mi/week). In your opinion what’s the threshold to decide to run around 9-10 h/wk? If you are not talented, it’s useless.
I do not get the question.
Do you mean your threshold pace? Or do you mean what is possible with 9-10h/week?
How should we know what is good for you, your goals etc. ?
lexel wrote:
Or do you mean what is possible with 9-10h/week?
Yes, what I could achieve running 10 h/week. If it's worth at my age, from your experience.
I'd like to taste my limits
You do have some talent - nobody runs a 10K under 6:00/mile without it - and there's only one way to find out if you'll respond to increased training volume. Hopefully you'd pair that with more deliberate training/periodization as well so you're using the extra training time intelligently.
Is it worth it? It's a big enough jump in volume, about 50%, that it might move you up from the low 70s up toward 80% in terms of age grade. It might not, of course, but if it does, that lands you somewhere in the 33-35 minute range for a 10K. How interesting that is depends on the races you care about. In the biggest 10K in my (small) state, that would move you from 5th-10th place on average to 1st-4th place. That seems worth it to me.
gtsolid_1 wrote:
lexel wrote:
Or do you mean what is possible with 9-10h/week?
Yes, what I could achieve running 10 h/week. If it's worth at my age, from your experience.
I'd like to taste my limits
I thought this was AVfromItaly's question. Anyway, its not all about how far you run / week or how much time you spend running / week. It's also about how you run during the week. You're not going to improve that 10K time unless you are doing speed and strength work. You need to feel the need for speed.
There is no either or here, nor a threshold range. It all depends on what you do, to say if you are not talented it's useless [to train harder] is rather short-sighted if not daft. You would probably improve considerably at 9-10 hours a week (building gradually of course), from where you are now assuming 5-6 hours a week on average.
AVfromItaly wrote:
Hi, I’m 30 yo, 37:10 PB on 10k with a training of 70 km/week (45 mi/week). In your opinion what’s the threshold to decide to run around 9-10 h/wk? If you are not talented, it’s useless.
Improve and a lot, if can hold...