Can I run sub 145km & sub 2910km?

depends what kind of sports injury.. if chronic/overuse/biomechanical related, and you get injured again, a definite no. otherwise, best of luck.

This standard is incredibly hard to reach and it will take years of uninterrupted training and a lot of talent to achieve these sort of times. Mileage wise you will need to be hitting over 100mpw coupled with quality sessions whilst avoiding injury.

Agree you must first build a platform to work on with plenty of miles I wouldn't even step foot on the track until you can handle high mileage months of say upto 70-80miles. Running below 29 minutes for 10km is an incredibly difficult thing to do probably harder than running sub 14 for 5km. I have a preety decent 5km pr 14:25 and my 10km time is nowhere near 29 minutes, 30:31 in fact on road. What is your current shape? I would estimate from totally no fitness it would take you 3-4 years to get a sub 30 10km even though I realise you have reached a good standard in the past.

you have a chance if: you can run a mile in 4:10, train 90-110 mpw for 8 months, get lucky and don't get injured and lastly....have the God given talent to do it.

10km man. wrote:

Iam basically starting from scratch after a number of years away form the sport due to injury. I have in the past got to a decent level in the sport. Aged 20 I ran 8:28 3km and 14:45 5km. My highest mileage was low around 50-60mpw at the very highest. I am willing to put in the work to achieve my aims of running sub 14 and sub 29 ovet the next few years. I do have talent but is this unrealistic. I am now 26, weigh 75kg, 1.77 tall.

Yes those are realistic targets. Don't listen to the doubters. Never take advice from a doubter.

Maybe you could try losing a little weight as well. 75kg is pretty heavy for somebody of your height. I'm 1.78 and weigh 64kg which is about average for a runner of my size.

Did you cross train or do any other sports e.g cycling while you were not running. If you have kept your aerobic fitness at a good level you should be able to come back a lot quicker.

It isnt so unusual to run for 10k what was formerly a 5k pace at age 20. Drops in race times of 5-7% are doable from the position you describe; that would put you near 8 flat, and near 29 flat 10k shape. For you the priority is staying healthy and getting fit enough to do the tougher training. Sounds like you'll need about one year to get back to racing weight and to edge up your kms some. Certainly, if you have the talent, 145k/week is sufficient. I'd guess even less if you can pull your 1500m below 3:50. Id probably cap you around 70-100k/week until youve surpassed your 8:28 best, perhaps working towards ~815 3k before moving up very much w/ either volume or racing distance.

People do not have a clue how hard it is to run fast times you have basically got to be so consistent over the years with your training and lifestyle. It is good to have goals etc but likelyhood that you will run sub 29 minute 10km or a sub 14 5km is very low. These times are super fast. To run 29 minute for 10km you will have to be in 13:45 5k, 7:55 3k shape. Do you have the genetics for this? And yes I have also run to a good standard 31:25 for 10km and 2:26 for the marathon not a slouch on the track either 1:57, 3:56, 8:39, 14:58 pr's.

As you say that you are willing to put in the work- with hard tough sessions and a dedicated coach anything is possible especially weekly track reps, 15x400m tough hill sessions with jog recoveries and some gym circuit training sessions(2hours pw) you could do it man- so get stuck in.

sub 29 is a whole different league than sub 14. I am surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet.

Sub 14 maybe, sub 29 ????

I don't agree, I know of a guy in the uk witha 5k pb of 14.09 who has run 28.59, a realsitic way of finding out your 10k potential is to double your 5k time and add a minute.

Mercier Scoring Tables say:

a 14:00 5k is equivalent to a 29:29 for 10k

a 29:00 10k is equivalent to a 13:46 for 5k

Given that you have a low mileage background, are starting from nil and had problems with injuries in the past the 14 min 5k seems like the more relaistic of the two to shoot for.

That guy in the UK is an outlier then. 14 and 29.5 are the more common equivalents.

MTH wrote:

Mercier Scoring Tables say:

a 14:00 5k is equivalent to a 29:29 for 10k

a 29:00 10k is equivalent to a 13:46 for 5k

Given that you have a low mileage background, are starting from nil and had problems with injuries in the past the 14 min 5k seems like the more relaistic of the two to shoot for.

Those figures are wrong.

A 14.00 5000m may be equivalent to a 29.30 road 10k, but it is also equivalent to a 29.05 10000m

You see the difference? 10k on the road is not as fast potentially as 10000m on the track.

ummm wrote:

Those figures are wrong.

A 14.00 5000m may be equivalent to a 29.30 road 10k, but it is also equivalent to a 29.05 10000m

You see the difference? 10k on the road is not as fast potentially as 10000m on the track.

No. What I said is correct. According to the Mercier Scoring Tables

a 5,000 meters on the track in 14:00 is equivalent to a 10,000 meters on the track in 29:29.

May be you are looking at a different scoring chart.

The figures are plainly wrong. I'm not looking at any scoring chart. I am comparing results 5k/10k 5000/10000 runners.

Yeah, consistency in training will be a big plus, but why not? At least give it a shot -- general maturation can help a lot. I know a guy who was injured for about 2/3 of the past year and with very, very little work under his belt nearly popped out a sub 14 5k recently. Probably due to just growing up and maturing.

Nope, I know someone in NY who ran 29 flat and 14:09 in college.

To the OP you chances also depend on your enviroment. Will be able to get in quality training. Will train with other guys of similar ability? Can you get into to big races with faster guys?

and I'll bet that guy could have broken 14 if he had tried around the time of the 29.