ronco22 [guest] from LetsRun.com
Question about progression Posted 6-27-2002 14:25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know eveyone develops at different rates, but I would like to pose this question to all of the runners out there. How long would it take someone who has recently started running, say within the last year or so and is 30 yrs old, and currently runs 10Ks in the 38:00 range to improve to the 32-33 minute range if the person is putting in 60-80 miles a week.
junfan [guest] from LetsRun.com
u need more speed Posted 6-27-2002 21:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
besides running 60-80 mpw, in order to improve, u must run those miles at a good/fast pace..and also do distance/speed workouts such as tempo runs...
you'll see results after at least 3 weeks
winner [guest] from LetsRun.com
38:00-32 or 33? Posted 6-29-2002 18:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact of the matter is that running a 33 minute 10K takes some talent. It depends completely on where you are fitnesswise when running one in 38 minutes. Do you have any weight to lose? If not, you may find that with a lot of hard work you can take a minute or two off that 38 minute 10K, but hard work alone will not drop you down to 33. That's two 16:30 5Ks back to back! There are lots of decent runners who post on this board (I include myself in that group), and sometimes I have seen that some of them feel that running a 10K several minutes slower than their PRs is a piece of cake for just anyone. It isn't. You get below 35 minutes for a 10K, and you have to have at least a little bit of talent (someone will probably tell me to go Gallowalking, but that is really a load). If you were running 38 minute 10ks within a month of training ever, I would say then that perhaps you had a good shot at running a 33 minute 10K, but since you have been running for over a year and you are running 38 minute 10Ks, I think you have a tough goal there - perhaps too tough to reach. I'm not just being a jerk here, just being realistic. I'm sure some will tell me that I shouldn't put a damper on your dreams, but I'm really not trying to do that. You should do everything you can to get that 10K time down if that is what you really want, but why choose a goal of 32-33 minutes? Coming from 38 that is a lofty goal, so if you're going to be setting lofty goals, why not 30 flat? I advise that you just do the work necessary to get faster, race, and see where the times go after several months of training. I always found that when I did serious training, fast times came. If I were a betting man, unless you are 40 pounds overweight or something, I'd say a 33 minute 10K is out of your reach. If I were to focus on a time goal and I were you, I would choose 35 minutes as the goal first and then see what you can do once you get there. Good luck.
bubu [guest] from LetsRun.com
winner Posted 7-1-2002 17:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
winner. You suck. I could take a guy 50 pounds over weight, train him for 3 months and get him down to 35 minutes. You mentioned the Gallowalking; now go do it.
highplainsdrifter [guest] from LetsRun.com
33 is not out of reach Posted 7-1-2002 17:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are already at 38 and are NOT currently doing a lot of high-volume speedwork, I think you have a shot. But just piling on miles is not the answer.
How I got down to 32-33's with no "talent"
(1) Long, hard track intervals. e.g. 4 or 5 x 1600 @ 5:20 walk/jog 400 recovery.
(2) Short speedwork. e.g. 18 x 200 @ 32-28
(3) Tempo Runs. e.g. 6-8 mi @ 6:00-5:30
(4) Long Runs: 13-18 weekly or bi-weekly at least
(5) Frequent Racing @ shorter distances/doubling at small road races (run the 10k and 2 mile)
Take easy days between hard workouts (no more than 2 consecutively). Losing another 10 lbs. sure doesn't hurt either.
winner [guest] from LetsRun.com
highplainsdrifter Posted 7-1-2002 21:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you're giving this guy too much hope. He can't do a 6-8 mile tempo run at 6:00-5:30 pace, that's why he's running 38 minute 10Ks. I'm seriously not trying to be mean here, but come on if 33 minute 10Ks were easy, then everyone would be doing them, and they're not. I worked at a road race two weeks ago with 400 entrants, and the winning time was 33:40 - it was a tiny bit hilly, but still. Nothing is impossible, that's for sure, but the reality is that after a year of running, and at age 30, and running only a 38 minute 10K, this guy has an extremely slim chance of running a 33 minute 10K. Again, for those of us who have run faster than a 33 minute 10K (my PR is 29:47) it seems easy to run a 33 minute 10K, but give yourselves some credit. 33 minutes requires some talent and hard work. No talent and hard work = 35 minutes or so. I ran my first 10K at age 14 with hardly any training, and I ran 35:30. This guy has been training for over a year and runs only 38 minutes? Train smarter and a little harder and he can get down to about 35 minutes. Again, unless he's packing on some serious weight that is holding him back, it is doubtful that he will get any faster than that. I hope that he takes my words and trains like a bastard and runs 29:30, but more than likely he won't. 35 something is what I predict is his ceiling.
drunner [guest] from LetsRun.com
one step at a time Posted 7-2-2002 01:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think 33 minutes is out of reach for you, but a few points:
goals are good, but you need some short term goals. If you want to get to 33 at some point try shooting for 37:30, then 37:00 and so on. You will be happier as you reach your goals and can better plan for your longer-term goal.
Also, mix it up. run some other races. You might be better suited for a 5 mile race or a 5k right now.
you will progress at a faster rate if you have a plan that includes several phases of training and some time for rest. You should include a build-up phase where milage is most important, a middle phase including longer intervals and tempo runs, and a speed phase where you run less milage but faster, and include shorter, faster intervals. You might need to join a running club with a knowledgeable coach to get to where you want to be. Hard training is key but so is smart training.
The best way to get better is train with people, preferably who are a little better than you
I've seen younger athletes have the progression you want in 1-3 years.
Good luck
ronco22 [guest] from LetsRun.com
thanks for all of the responses Posted 7-2-2002 16:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Mr. Winner the reason it has taken almost a year to get my 10K time down to 38 is that I was a competetive bodybuilder weighing in at 250 lbs. @ 5% bodyfat. I have had to lose quite a bit of weight. It took almost 6 months to get my weight down to 170 lbs. I've still got to lose about 25 more pounds to get back to the weight I was at in high school and college when I did run. You see, I use to run and loved it. I got involved in bodybuilding because I also played baseball and needed to gain weight to try and make it to the majors. But after getting in the weight room I really loved it and pursued bodybuilding. After some knee problems and colon problems from consuming tons of protein and very little carbs for 10+ years my doctor recommended that I give up bodybuilding if I wanted to be healthy and enjoy my family. He told me to take up running or something. Well, since I ran before I decided to give it another try. The reason I have 32-33 minutes as my goals is because those are the times I was running when I quit and started lifting weights. I wasn't never really fast but I do have PRs of 15:47 for 5K and 33:04 for 10K. I am hoping to get in shape enough to better my PRs. That is my goals. Hopefully when I get down to 145lbs or so I will see some significant difference.
Sorry about typing so much. I just wanted to give a little more background. Thanks for all of th input you guys have given.
winner [guest] from LetsRun.com
ronco22 Posted 7-2-2002 17:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ronco22 - Ron Popeil? Well, that was a good explanation. Like I said, unless you had a lot of weight to lose, I didn't think you could get down there. Since you say you need to lose about 25 pounds still (that's a lot extra to be dragging around), and if you are able to do that, follow the directions that others have given here, and based on the fact that you have run a 33:04 in the past, I would say then that it is possible for you to get down to 33 minutes, and perhaps even faster. I wasn't trying to rain on your dreams, like I said before. My position still stands though that if you were someone who had been running for a year, you didn't have any weight to lose and you were running 38 minutes for a 10K, then 33 minutes is too lofty of a goal - there might be a small fraction of people who could get down there with that criteria, but more than likely not. Sometimes in this sport, we hear the "just do the work and you can do it" argument. Certainly doing the work helps much of the time, but at some point talent has to take effect. Not everyone can run a 33 minute 10K, no matter what they do, and a 30 year old running a 38 minute 10K with a year of running under his belt and no additional weight to lose is one of those who can't. You don't fit that criteria, so I say you have a good shot at doing it. Even at 30 though, you will find that you are more susceptible to injury than you were in your early 20s. Good luck.
ronco22 [guest] from LetsRun.com
hey there winner!! Posted 7-2-2002 18:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agreee with you there Winner. I took no offense to what you said on your first post and you didn't rain on my dreams either. I responded hoping to give further insight as to my background.
By the way, I'm not Ron Popeil. Who is he? Did he go through some of the same stuff?
curious [guest] from LetsRun.com
question for Winner or anyone else Posted 7-2-2002 18:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the 38 min. guy was 20 years old (vs. 30), had only been running for a year, and had no weight to lose? What would be realistic goals for him?
How about a 22 year old runner who had been running for 1.5 years, and ran a 2:57 marathon? What would be realistic marathon (and 10k) goals for him? He trained for the marathon at about 70 MPW with a little bit of speedwork. He didn't have to lose weight, either.
King of Karma [guest] from LetsRun.com
curious Posted 7-2-2002 18:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe try training like a 5k - 10k runner for 3 more years. In your off season base phase build up to 90 mpw or so for a period, and then do ~70 for your specific training phase and 50-70 for your racing phase. Increase this mileage 5-10% each year.
Try to knock of another minute or two off your 10k time within the next couple of years. Without knowing much background it's hard to speculate, but something in the 2:30s is not out of the question in 3 years. After that there is still plenty of time and room for improvement.
winner [guest] from LetsRun.com
ronco22 Posted 7-2-2002 19:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ronco22 - Ron Popeil is the owner of a company called Ronco. They made the Pocket Fisherman and Mr. Microphone in the 70s, and now he does informercials for his Food Dehydrator and his rotissiree (sp?) "Just set it and forget it!". He also has a line of GLH spray on hair that he did informericals for in the 90s. Man is a multi millionaire selling mostly worthless crap, although lately he's been producing finer quality goods as far as I've heard.
As far as your progress from a body builder to a distance runner again, I went to college with a guy who played linebacker, but he was on the small side for that position. He weighed about 235 or so. He did tons of lifting and ate lots of protein and carbs to maintain that weight. When college was over and he had no hopes or going further with it, his competitive juices still flowed, and he started lifting lighter weights and biking and running. He got down to about 150, and now at age 34 he runs 5ks in just under 15 minutes and recently ran a 31:57 10-K. He had never run in a race until after college. Good luck with the running.
Once you get to where you want to be, you might consider running in the Arnold Schwartzenegger Pump and Run 5K in Columbus, OH. Here's a link to the site that tells about it, but you do better if you can bench your weight 30 times and then run a fast time.
http://www.arnoldfitnessexpo.com/5k_2002.asp
The link is for the one just past in Febuary, but you get the idea. I've always stayed away from heavier lifting as much as possible, because for some reason I bulk up big time and fast when I lift heavier weights. As it is, my legs are freakishly muscular, and I don't need my upper half to be the same lest I want to run slower than I am these days.
Good luck dude.
ronco22 [guest] from LetsRun.com
Winner Posted 7-2-2002 19:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the info on the Arnold Pump and run. That looks pretty interesting.
Wow, your buddy from college sure did well with his running. Hopefully, now that I'm getting my first tast of speed oriented stuff I can make some big steps this summer.
Good luck with your runnig too.