I'd be thinking at least 300+?
I'd be thinking at least 300+?
equals a 31:24 10K, I'd say more than 300
Should be a high number. I ran 1:20 on a rolling course just out of college and I did not run in college
a lot of them don't have the mileage. Plenty could, but a lot of guys running 31:xx on 50-80 mpw wouldn't have the specific endurance and would end up running more like 1:12.
Summers in Iceland wrote:
a lot of them don't have the mileage. Plenty could, but a lot of guys running 31:xx on 50-80 mpw wouldn't have the specific endurance and would end up running more like 1:12.
Because there are so many guys running 31min 10k on 50mpw. Moron.
in case any collegiate guys are reading
that's what this old guy can do
just sayin wrote:
http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Martin-Rees-world-record-run-encapsulates-Bath/story-18325260-detail/story.html#axzz2Rab7CzRy
That is one crazy fast old bloke. 60yo running 1:11:32 (5:28/mile pace) for a new AG WR. That is crazy fast, especially since he had to take a couple of years off due to knee problems.
I wonder how fast he was in the past in his younger years. And I wonder how he approaches training.
wowser wrote:
just sayin wrote:http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Martin-Rees-world-record-run-encapsulates-Bath/story-18325260-detail/story.html#axzz2Rab7CzRyThat is one crazy fast old bloke. 60yo running 1:11:32 (5:28/mile pace) for a new AG WR. That is crazy fast, especially since he had to take a couple of years off due to knee problems.
I wonder how fast he was in the past in his younger years. And I wonder how he approaches training.
HGH
Some lunatic wrote:
wowser wrote:That is one crazy fast old bloke. 60yo running 1:11:32 (5:28/mile pace) for a new AG WR. That is crazy fast, especially since he had to take a couple of years off due to knee problems.
I wonder how fast he was in the past in his younger years. And I wonder how he approaches training.
HGH
Do your homework on Martin Rees. There's a search engine called Google. It should help you with learning about him. This should reduce your chances of coming onto the message boards and acting like a vagina again.
You're welcome.
The best women run 1:06-1:10, so any men who can run 4:25y, and 15:20 for 5k or are solid XC runners (i.e. faster than Kara Goucher) could do it.
This is not even a stretch for any distance runner who runs D1.
I ran collegiately in a much slower era than the current one. (late 80's/early 90's) and I was a middle of the packer.
I ran 1:14 essentially jogging a half while in college. A year after I graduated, I ran 1:11 jogging the first half and pushing the pace the second half.
The point I'm making is that if a middle of the packer from a slow era could break 1:10 (and I think I would have been close if I would have run one seriously), then I'm thinking a whole lot of guys could run that fast nowadays.
slow90s_Guy wrote:
I ran collegiately in a much slower era than the current one. (late 80's/early 90's) and I was a middle of the packer.
I ran 1:14 essentially jogging a half while in college. A year after I graduated, I ran 1:11 jogging the first half and pushing the pace the second half.
The point I'm making is that if a middle of the packer from a slow era could break 1:10 (and I think I would have been close if I would have run one seriously), then I'm thinking a whole lot of guys could run that fast nowadays.
If you ran 1:14 "essentially jogging" you should have been capable of flirting with 60 minutes, not 70. I ran faster in college than you did but I don't try to act like it was some half-assed effort.
luv2run wrote:
Should be a high number. I ran 1:20 on a rolling course just out of college and I did not run in college
The difference between 80 and 70 minutes is kind of a lot, you know.
Phidipidippides wrote:
If you ran 1:14 "essentially jogging" you should have been capable of flirting with 60 minutes, not 70. I ran faster in college than you did but I don't try to act like it was some half-assed effort.
Perhaps I understate when I say jogging, but it certainly wasn't a hard effort, at all.
I remember the first one my friends and I were running and chatting. A professional women's runner passed me and I decided to tag along behind her. It really wasn't a "racing" effort.
The second one was similar. I was running just under 6 minute pace to start and maintained that for 5 or 6 miles and then started to push hard in the second half.
I would say in those days with a hard effort for the full event I was capable of 1:09.
The overall point, though, is that scads of dudes who are current middle of the packers would be MUCH faster than I was then. I would guess that 1:10 would be a very average time for a collegiate runner today.
By sophomore year in college I would say 300 would be the answer. sub 5:20 pace for 13 miles is right around equal to 31:10 for 10k.
Phidipidippides wrote:
If you ran 1:14 "essentially jogging" you should have been capable of flirting with 60 minutes, not 70. I ran faster in college than you did but I don't try to act like it was some half-assed effort.
By the way, you probably were faster than me in college, but how would you know that from my one post?
I would think a fair amount.
In college I ran 31:00 usually off of 70-80 mpw. My first half was 67:20 again off of ~70 mpw. In college I would get my butt kicked in most xc races (50-70th place in the bigger races and 30-40th in my region). So yeah, I would think a lot could do it.
slow90s_Guy wrote:
Phidipidippides wrote:If you ran 1:14 "essentially jogging" you should have been capable of flirting with 60 minutes, not 70. I ran faster in college than you did but I don't try to act like it was some half-assed effort.
By the way, you probably were faster than me in college, but how would you know that from my one post?
I didn't mean faster overall, just faster HM. Sorry if that was unclear. It would always irk me a bit to hear guys say they "just tempoed" a race.
luv2run wrote:
Should be a high number. I ran 1:20 on a rolling course just out of college and I did not run in college
70 is 1:10 not 1:20 idiot. Huge difference.