In order to use the only track in my city i have to run under 8:50 for 3000, 15:15 for 5000 or 33:00 for 10000.
Im a 20 year old guy with no training, the 10000 seems a little bit easier but it will take a long time to develop my aerobic system and perhaps the 3000 requires less miles of training for someone who is completely out of shape.
Which event should i shoot for?
8:50 for 3000 is the easiest in my opinion
15:15 is probably more difficult
33:00 is in the middle
10000 is easiest, then 3000, then 5k
I agree and I think the 10000 is WAY easier.
wowwwww wrote:
10000 is easiest, then 3000, then 5k
What are you previous pr's in these events. In my experience running a sub 33:00 minute 10k would be the easiest event. However, this depends on if your more of a miler compared to that of a longer distance runner.
ygfr wrote:
I agree and I think the 10000 is WAY easier.
I say 10k is way easier too. It's difficult to find a chip-timed 3,000m.
helping hand wrote:
What are you previous pr's in these events. In my experience running a sub 33:00 minute 10k would be the easiest event. However, this depends on if your more of a longer distance runner than that of a miler.
800: 2:12
1500: 4:34
After 2 months of training (30 mpw)
10k is by far the easiest unless you've got no aerobic capacity to speak of.
Would you mind explaining in more detail the situation: who sets these standards and where are you that there is only one track in town (so surely not a major city) yet it's guarded so closely? I've never heard of such a thing. Or are you talking about the only indoor track in town? If so I guess maybe that makes sense, since space is limited.
I was just an average small college guy and my best 10k was 32:58, 5k was 15:37, 1500 was 4:12 (4:30 mile so no way I was doing 8:50) all in the same year. So I'd agree 33 is the easiest and say 15:15 is the hardest. Check out the McMillan calculator to play around some more with it: http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/cgi-bin/calc.pl
Its not just a track, its a place that has two tracks, two gyms and other facilities.
Since elite athletes of my country use it, the local athletic association set those standars.
you don't have a chance over 3k or 5k with those PR's so 10k is your best bet.
33:00 is the easiest if you are better at longer distances. Your 800 and 1500 times would have to get a lot better to run 8:50 or 15:15. If it helps I have bests of 8:58, 15:37, and 33:00.
where do you LIVE eugene!
BSkomes wrote:
8:50 for 3000 is the easiest in my opinion
15:15 is probably more difficult
33:00 is in the middle
I agree with this guy, the 10k is the easiest and 5k the hardest.
My conversion tables say...
8:50 3k -> ~15:21 5k -> ~32:09 10k
15:15 5k -> ~8:46 3k -> ~31:56 10k
33:00 10k -> ~9:04 3k -> ~15:45 5k
I'll weigh in: the 3000 and the 5000 are about the same; maybe the 3000 is a little better. The 10,000 is, by far, the easiest to run. 33:00 is equivalent to around 16:00 for 5000 and to around 9:15 for 3000. I ran 32 minutes for 10000 and never broke 9 minutes for 3000, nor 15:20 for 5000. And I was NOT a good 10000 m runner.
Yeah I was going to say make the 10k 32:00 and then it gets close. Would rate it 3k>10>5K but the 3 and 10 would be close at 32:00
As an 800 runner, the 15:15 is definitely the hardest of the three. I would personally find the 8:50 to be the easiest, the 33:00 to be a moderately difficult tempo, and the 15:15 a difficult tempo. My range pretty much stops cold at 2 miles, so if I don't think the 10000 is that much harder than the 3000, I'm guessing the 10000 is much easier to an actual distance guy.
I ran 33.00 for 10k never looked like breaking 9.00 and never broke 16. I was a 4.20 1500m runner.
Definitely the 10k would be the easiest, followed by the 3k, then the 5k (in my opinion). I think letsrun agrees about the 10k