What kind of a 10k time would a 2:55 marathoner run?

37:46

~37 minutes?

depends if you are more naturally gifted as a speed guy or not and how well prepared you were for the 2:55 marathon. some could have the speed to run under 33 minutes for 10k and not have the endurance to run 2:55.

My 10k pr is 31:09. My Thon PR is....you guessed it.....2:55.

40-50 MPW can sometimes get you a desent 10k, but, an equivalent Marathon on said volume might be asking a bit too much! :)

[quote]Skuj wrote:

My 10k pr is 31:09. My Thon PR is....you guessed it.....2:55.

you should be able to run in the low 230's if you can run a 10k in 31:10....just throw in a 2 hour run twice a month.

Wow you stinked it up. I'm a ~32 minute runner and I've done 20-mile training runs @ that pace feeling at ease.

I ran 36:55 on track before a 2:54 marathon.

That is more in line, I ran 37:07 before a 2:58. The guy with the 31 minute 10K should be much faster than 2:55 even on 40-50 miles a week.

Ok Ok so I wasn't exactly "racing" the 2:55. Still, the general point is valid. :)

You can be much better at 10k than the Thon due to your training.

Skuj,

I have a good friend who rat 3150 on the track, and could only muster a 301 marathon. He hurt for months afterwards, and swore off any distance over 10 miles.

What do you think you could've run?

There are two good rule's of thumb for determining 10k and half marathon times based off of marathon times faster than 3:30.

Half Marathon pace is 95% of marathon pace

10k pace is 90% of marathon pace

a 2:55:00 is 6:41 per mile

so 95% of 6:41 is 6:21 which is a 1:23:10 half marathon

and 90% of 6:41 is 6:01 which is a 37:20 10k

As with any rule of thumb these are approximates but I find that these two are usually right on target.

These rules of thumb assume you are equally prepared for each distance. Skuj obviously was not as well prepared for his marathon as he was for his 10k.

RESkcsu wrote:

Skuj,

I have a good friend who rat 3150 on the track, and could only muster a 301 marathon. He hurt for months afterwards, and swore off any distance over 10 miles.

What do you think you could've run?

Seriously, in the late 90s I was doing some long runs and dreaming of a sub 2:30....it was all dreaming though! :) I just never enjoyed doing the long stuff.

I did a 66:23 20k.

Skuj wrote:

My 10k pr is 31:09. My Thon PR is....you guessed it.....2:55.

40-50 MPW can sometimes get you a desent 10k, but, an equivalent Marathon on said volume might be asking a bit too much! :)

I see you later said you weren't racing it, but still, I thought I had the worst drop off between 10k and marathon.

My marathon PR -- 2:55!

My 10k PR -- 32:25

And I WAS racing that marathon. Bottom line is that in the 7 marathons I've run, I've never had a good buildup, never paced it correctly, never had a race go the way it should have. I had run a half marathon of 1:15 during the buildup to that 2:55. Seems I could have run it faster...just never did. Probably a combination of bad preparation and just not having great talent for the marathon. My 14:58 5,000 PR even suggests I could have run a faster 10,000...but I never did.

10k PR 35:48

Marathon PR 2:40

Some are better at the longer ones.

In the seventies, Pete Riegel published a useful algorithm that related any time/distance to the (then-current) WR, as a way to equalize performance over different distances. It was a handy thing, and a bunch of us used to use it. For me (at age 38, oh so long ago):

10k 35:20 index = 781

10M 59:00 index = 777

but my best marathon was 2:51, index = 750. I always thought I could reach into the mid 2:40s somewhere (but never did).

A 2:45 would have been 778.

My other performances from 3-4 miles to 20K were consistently 775-785.

So if we use this procedure on the OP's time:

2:55 marathon = 733

37:40 10K = 733

I'm sure I don't have to point out the perils in using a single index that can't take training and conditions into account. But for all that, it gives you a reasonable yardstick, I think.

My 10k pr is 30:22 and I ran 2:24 and change. Who am I?

Here's the worst dropoff:

me

30:46 (track)

3:08:25 ... not in great shape for over 15k, but still thought I could run 2:25. Had run 47:56 3-4 weeks before. Hit 1:13:03 halfway and feeling good. Legs turned to stone between 17 and 19. Jogged/walked it in. Never raced it again.

Ran 1:23 for 25k, 1:10 for 1/2 mar, though

Wow, my numbers are very close to daderowks;

best full is 3:08:09 but I've run a sub 31 10k, 14:56 5km 8:36 3km track, can jog a half in 1:15. Full is a different beast. Not the same shape and had some bad weather luck but not always a correlation.

Crusie the first half in 1:20 and end up walking by 19 miles.

Next year I will try a full again if I'm not injured.

I would guess most 2:55 guys are running 36 or 37 min for 10km.

38:06--37:52