Could I break 33 mins. in the 10k based on this workout

As another data point, I ran 8 x 1k with 90 seconds rest in 3:11-3:14 a couple weeks before a 33:20.

sisyphus wrote:

75:05, that's a lot more telling than your workout. If you have any speed at all, I'll give you a 33:20 or better.

Therein lies the problem....my performances are usually stronger the longer the race....For my next HM in about a month I would like to run around 73:30-74:00. I feel comfortable around 5:35-5:40 pace, but my form goes to hell when I get down around 5:15-5:20 pace.....makes sense since I have done a lot of tempo work and little work at 5k-10k pace

Sisyphus what are your times this year? Can you run under 33 in the 10k?

sisyphus wrote:

75:05, that's a lot more telling than your workout. If you have any speed at all, I'll give you a 33:20 or better.

I diagree with this. I've got better speed than endurance and have run 73-mid twice but my best 10k is 33:39. I've gone a little under 16, but try as I might could never put the proper scare into a 10k.

sisyphus wrote:

I've had runners hit 5x1600 in 5 flat with 60 seconds rest - not fast jog - and they can't break 33 for 10k.

That is kind of absurd.

I would think runners with that speed could break 32 minutes easily for a 10k.

They must be quite lacking in stamina.

J.R. wrote:

sisyphus wrote:

I've had runners hit 5x1600 in 5 flat with 60 seconds rest - not fast jog - and they can't break 33 for 10k.

That is kind of absurd.

I would think runners with that speed could break 32 minutes easily for a 10k.

They must be quite lacking in stamina.

Yeah I would think 5Xmile @ 5 falt off 60 secs. rest wouldbe a lock for sub 33 and probablycould run under 32.....guesss some people leave it all in the workout

some dude wrote:

I diagree with this. I've got better speed than endurance and have run 73-mid twice but my best 10k is 33:39. I've gone a little under 16, but try as I might could never put the proper scare into a 10k.[/quote]

According to statistics, you don't have better speed than endurance. Put 100 16 flat guys on the line for a half and far less than half will break 75. Put 100 73 mid half guys on the line, and far more than half will break 16. A sample of one means nothing.

@JR, I agree a guy who can run 5x1600 in 5:00 with 60 rest not being able to break 33 is absurd. However, my point was since people like that do exist, standing rest and very slow jog rest workouts are not good indicators. If you work with teams, you'll see workout heroes clobber guys who beat them by a minute in races. The whole point was the quick jog recoveries help to eliminate this difference.

Whoever asked if I could run sub 33, I don't see the point to this question. If you want to know if I coach or have coached a lot of sub 33s, the answer is yes. The range is from sub 29 to north of 60. If it really does matter, I ran about 33 flat when I was 17, got down to a track 30:16 (we won't talk about the downhill course)and now at 40 would be right around 33 I'd guess. Ran 16:02, 1:15:11 and 2:38:00 in September... yes, I like to race. I'd never advise someone based solely on my experiences as a runner though. As I said, a sample of one is worthless. A sample of hundreds (people I've coached, people I've known, people my friends have coached) works much better.

sisyphus wrote:

my point was since people like that do exist, standing rest and very slow jog rest workouts are not good indicators. If you work with teams, you'll see workout heroes clobber guys who beat them by a minute in races. The whole point was the quick jog recoveries help to eliminate this difference.

I agree with this, though still feel that stamina is the key.

Those runners who are not able to break 33 must be greatly lacking in stamina. Perhaps their mileage is lower than others, and probably their longer distance times are quite a bit slower.

I used to train quite a bit with a good friend of mine who could trash me at a mile, and even repeat miles when the rests were too long, but the advantage switched over with quick jogs, we were equal at 2 miles and my marathon time was 10 minutes faster. So I think there is a good relationship between recoveries and stamina. Also I feel that individual experiences are quite valid.

Standing rest and slow jog rest workouts might have their place, provided the recoveries are short enough, i.e. making them more of a continuous run. For example if those runners walked 100 meters in 60s instead of standing around then that would give them more of a challenge.

Tony Waldrop used to run sets of 3 or 4 quarters in 55 seconds with 55 yard jogs. At that speed I would guess the jogs were at least 30 seconds, which is still quite a short recovery. And I saw Dani Milan run quite a few sets of 400's in 54/56 seconds with 60s sitting on the curb in between.

sisyphus wrote:Put 100 16 flat guys on the line for a half and far less than half will break 75. Put 100 73 mid half guys on the line, and far more than half will break 16.

As I said, a sample of one is worthless. A sample of hundreds (people I've coached, people I've known, people my friends have coached) works much better.

You're full of it sisyphus. The running times race calculator, which is pretty much in line with Daniels, McMillan etc, gives 34:06 equivalency for a 1:15 half. Either you haven't atually observed 100s of runners, or your memory is flawed.

And from McMillan:

Event 100m 200m 400m 500m 800m 1000m 1500m Mile 2000m 3000m 2M 4000m 3M 5000m

Time 13.8 27.6 57.7 1:15.3 2:06.7 2:45.6 4:20.9 4:41.0 5:56.3 9:18.3 9:59.7 12:42.8 15:38 16:14

Pace/Mile -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4:46.7 4:59.5 4:59.8 5:06.9 5:13 5:13

Pace/K -- -- -- -- -- -- 2:54.0 2:54.6 2:58.1 3:06.1 3:06.3 3:10.7 3:14 3:15

Event 4M 8000m 5M 10K 15K 10M 20K 13.1M 15M 25K 30K 20M 25M Marathon

Time 21:13 26:45 26:53 33:42 52:14 56:28 1:11:04 1:15:00 1:26:30 1:30:17 1:49:49 1:58:46 2:29:42 2:38:11

Pace/Mile 5:19 5:22 5:22 5:25 5:36 5:39 5:44 5:44 5:46 5:49 5:54 5:56 5:59 6:03

Pace/K 3:18 3:20 3:20 3:22 3:29 3:30 3:34 3:34 3:35 3:37 3:40 3:41 3:43 3:45

From this profile, your times of 16:02, 1:15 and 2:38 line up quite nicely, with the 5k being stronger, but his calculator shows 33:42 for 10k, a hell of a long way from 33 flat.

dude...! wrote:

You're full of it sisyphus. The running times race calculator, which is pretty much in line with Daniels, McMillan etc, gives 34:06 equivalency for a 1:15 half. Either you haven't atually observed 100s of runners, or your memory is flawed.

I don't worry about calculators that much when I can get personal information on someone. A guy who's still fairly young, only been running for three years and has "decent speed" will most likely be stronger on the low end of a calculator designed for marathoners. For instance, Purdy works much better for newer runners who don't train like marathoners. If you want to use Daniels and argue that the vast majority of high school 4:30 milers can run a 71:30 half, go for it. I disagree. If hotpanoliveoil grew up as one of the faster kids on the block and can run 1:15 off of fairly low mileage, I think he can feel very confident getting out the first mile of a flat 10k in 5:20 and being able to hold it.

The OP wrote:

"Therein lies the problem....my performances are usually stronger the longer the race...."

Follow the script. His 75:05 and 34:08 are very nearly equivalent. We've seen nothing in this thread to suggest this guy can go faster than 33:30-45. Don't make shit up to tell him what he wants to hear.

dude...! wrote:

The OP wrote:

"Therein lies the problem....my performances are usually stronger the longer the race...."

Follow the script. His 75:05 and 34:08 are very nearly equivalent. We've seen nothing in this thread to suggest this guy can go faster than 33:30-45. Don't make shit up to tell him what he wants to hear.

My bad; I thought he had continued training since his 34:08, focused on a late fall 10k, and been doing 10k specific workouts. In my experience, people improve over time, especially with tweaks in their training and with a primary race to focus on. Apparently your experience is different. Now the OP has different perspectives to consider.

sisyphus wrote: My bad; I thought he had continued training since his 34:08, focused on a late fall 10k, and been doing 10k specific workouts. In my experience, people improve over time, especially with tweaks in their training and with a primary race to focus on. Apparently your experience is different. Now the OP has different perspectives to consider.

Yes, he has one perspective that has looked carefully at all of the data offered and made a middle of the road suggestion on that basis (33:30-45, which reflects an improvement by the way, no need for the snarkiness), and another perspective imagining kittens and puppies for everybody.

You've made some fairly bold claims with apparent authority, and this is what I've chosen to challenge. If you took 100 runners with a 75 minute half, surely some of them would be capable of running sub-16... the ones with poor aerobic development who shouldn't be running a hald in the first place. If you take 100 runners who were well prepared for the half and ran 75 minutes, very few (less than a handful) would be capable of running sub-16 on their best day. The fact that you were close, while your hald and marathon were nearly identical suggests several possibilities: the marathon was short or aided; the 5k was short or aided;, or, the half course was long, hilly or you had a bad day.

And another thing...!

Since you are assuming we are dealing with younger runners, or runners with relatively poor development, then a 16-flat 5k translates to no faster than 33:30-45, probably slower in most cases.

Sorry man, I've got a bee in my bonnet. I'm going to try some meditation to see if I can let this go. :-)

Good luck to the OP, also.

dude...! wrote:

And another thing...!

Since you are assuming we are dealing with younger runners, or runners with relatively poor development, then a 16-flat 5k translates to no faster than 33:30-45, probably slower in most cases.

Sorry man, I've got a bee in my bonnet. I'm going to try some meditation to see if I can let this go. :-)

Good luck to the OP, also.

Actually, we're dealing with 1 runner. A guy who ran 34:08 in his first year of running and has been training for two years since then. I'm not assuming or making this up; it is, as you say, in the script. Also, you've got 33:30 on the low side, I've got 33:20 on the high side. Do you really think your formulas are so exact that 10 seconds over 6.214 miles makes one of us "full of it" and the other legit? That being said, puppies and kittens for all!

dude...! wrote:

And another thing...!

Since you are assuming we are dealing with younger runners, or runners with relatively poor development, then a 16-flat 5k translates to no faster than 33:30-45, probably slower in most cases.

Sorry man, I've got a bee in my bonnet. I'm going to try some meditation to see if I can let this go. :-)

Good luck to the OP, also.

I think you have fairly similar predictions - 33:20 vs. 33:30-45, really isn't a significant difference.

I have a 5k slated for Oct.17th and the 10k goes Oct.31st. I think if I can run around 16 flat Ill be good for 33:30ish.

Sisyphus - From your experience, what kind of 400m speed would you consider to be "average" amongst the 30-31 minute type guys you have coached? I know there is probably considerable variability, but yeah, if you had to guess? This is a goal of mine possibly for next fall as I plan to bring my mileage up from 70 to the 100 range. I'd

guess Id have a lot of trouble breaking 60 right

now (and more like 62ish). This is an area I want to develop over the next year - any general suggestions? Thanks a lot for your input by the way

sisyphus wrote: Do you really think your formulas are so exact that 10 seconds over 6.214 miles makes one of us "full of it" and the other legit?

I don't actually like to use formulas so much, but here the discussion was begging for a dose of reality coming from somewhere, anywhere!

To the OP... the suggestion you couldn't crack 60 for a quarter is definitely consistent with your claim you're better at longer distances. I have a buddy who has run 71-72 for the half but can't crack 60. I would think that would be close to the limit for potential. If you want to be faster than that (30-31 for 10k would definitely be faster/better than that) then you need to spend some time and effort focussing on speed.

I'd suggest a large proportion of your sessions should be shorter faster stuff on longer rest, rather than the longer reps on short active recovery. Stuff like blazing 100s, 150s, 200s, 300s etc. Not exclusively that kind of work, but likely more of it than you do now.

@ hotpan

I'm going to go with dude on this one. Speed is on the low side of normal for a 33 flat guy. Most can break 60. Ironically, because I don't like to base things strictly off myself, I can't. I'm not a huge speed for speed's sake advocate. The ability to hold close to max speed seems more important than that flat out speed. My best speed workouts for speed enhancement are

1) Strides during easy runs that are close to top speed. These are staples of about every schedule I write. 6-8 x 20 second strides with at least 2 minutes running between each.

2) 16x100 starting every 60 seconds at mile pace or slightly faster. (17-18 for you). This can be done on an easy day. We've done this workout the day before big races and performed great the next day.

3) Short steep uphill sprints. Like 8x10 second hill with 2 minutes + recovery. Once again can be done as part of an easy/medium day or added to a workout.

4)Flat out 40-50 yard sprints. We usually do these before track workouts or after easy runs. 4-8 with 2+ minutes recovery.

With very little traditional speed workouts and sprinkling these into schedules, Ive had runners really improve speed. I think the most ridiculous example was a kid who was a good distance runner but couldn't break 60 in the 400 ran 1:54 less than two years later. I wouldn't expect that result though.