Is a sub-60 10-miler that hard?

Are you running sub 36 10k's? That'll give you a good idea whether it's a sub hour 10 miler or not.

Also, make a large bet with your father. There's no better motivation than money.

Karl Hungus wrote:

Are you running sub 36 10k's? That'll give you a good idea whether it's a sub hour 10 miler or not.

Also, make a large bet with your father. There's no better motivation than money.

I've never raced a 10k. Sorry.

Hypotheticals Are My Game wrote:

Karl Hungus wrote:

Are you running sub 36 10k's? That'll give you a good idea whether it's a sub hour 10 miler or not.

Also, make a large bet with your father. There's no better motivation than money.

I've never raced a 10k. Sorry.

Then there is no way in hell you can run a 10miler in under 1 hour.

scorpion_runner wrote:

Hypotheticals Are My Game wrote:

I've never raced a 10k. Sorry.

Then there is no way in hell you can run a 10miler in under 1 hour.

Do you say that because of my recent workouts? I don't think they're very good approximations of my fitness because they're not extremely hard efforts. It's just summer base training.

I know they aren't very accurate but tinman's running calculator says a 4:45 is the equivalent of a 56, so I though I would have a chance to run slightly less than 4 minutes slower than that since I'm not as aerobically developed.

Training to run 4:45 and training to run sub 60 are not even remotely close to the same thing. To run hard for an hour, you need experience running hard for an hour.

I would argue that a 4:45 mile is significantly easier than a 56 minute 10 miler. I suggest running a 10K to not only work on your pacing, but to help gain a better sense of your strength endurance.

When I was in the shape you were currently (for 800/mile(or 1600?)) in 11 weeks ago I was able to run under 60 for 10 miles, but I was doing more mileage and more endurance based workouts.

Running a fast mile is very different. You have enough speed to run sub 1 hour but you haven't trained for it. I'm with your Dad. My guess is 63-64 min.

I couldn't read through that whole thing, but if you are running 2:10/4:45 you should be able to run under 60 min in a race fairly easily unless you have poor endurance.

When I was a freshman and had just run 4:50/10:20 I was able to do it for sure. I ran 36:00 for 10k right after track was over.

Hypotheticals Are My Game wrote:

5mi fartlek (unstructured) in 33:45. (4 weeks ago)

3mi easy tempo in 17:55 on rolling, muddy terrain+ 4x220 yards (31,32,31,29) (4 weeks ago)

20min tempo (3.4mi) (2 weeks ago)

I ran similar times for my tempo workouts as a teenager (staying well within myself), and split 55:xx through 10 miles for my first half marathon. I was probably in 4:2x shape for the mile though.

Time trial a 6 mile or 10K. If you can't get 6:00 pace solo for that, you won't break 60. My guess is you don't have the endurance to do it at this point.

I split sub 60 for ten miles in last half marathon ( I later died on the hills) and had ran 36:11 the month before. No where close to your mile speed but had ran a lot of mile over the winter 75mpw+

You're very likely good enough to run under an hour for 10 miles, but you might not have the endurance required.

You gave 1mi and 800 times, and someone asked for a 10k or, but why didn't you give a 5k time at least? Is this a time you are less proud of?

Also, is your Dad's PR for 10 miles 1:02:59, by chance? The that could be why he is giving you a prediction of 1:03

You can break an hour.

These clowns going on about needing experience and more specific training are namby pamby.

People get way too caught up in event specificity.

I ran a couple of sub-60 10-milers in Central Park years ago. At the time, I was routinely running 36 minutes for 10K, plus or minus 15 seconds. I never broken 5:00 in the mile--my fastest was 5:02. But I was running a lot of hills, along with a two-hour long run every weekend, and I was pushing the pace hard in the latter half of the long run.

I lived on 122nd Street, just north of Columbia, and I'd run all the way up to Inwood Hill Park, up under the GW Bridge, and then all the way back down to Central Park, hammering around it and back uptown and home. So the races felt like a harder version of what I was doing on the latter part of the long run. I remember the 10-milers feeling more like tempo runs than all-out races, in fact. I just got into the groove and held it. It was a hard pace, slightly above threshold, but not HARD hard.

In answer to your question: it all depends on your training. If your training has some longer, harder tempo runs, the race itself won't feel as hard as if you don't have that sort of element in your training.

You're young and have some good speed, but you need to realize speed is only going to get you so far. Without the endurance and engine (and mental strength) you could be in for an agonizing first experience. I highly recommend you race or time trial some 10ks. Just remember you have about another 4 miles to run after you finish that 10k. A good benchmark to shoot for would be 36:-37:15 for a 10k. Once you hit that you're getting closer to running sub 60 10 miler. Also, you said this race is in the spring of 2018? I think you have plenty of time to get your endurance up for that. You're basically training to do a 10 mile tempo run in peak shape according to Daniel's.

Quick follow-up: From my perspective, looking at your training, the single most important change you could make would be to extend your long run from 10 to 14-15 miles, with the second half of that long run at a high aerobic or even near-threshold pace. If you want to run a fast 10 miler, you need a longer long run. Your 800 meter pace means nothing! Your long run just isn't long enough. That's why your dad is offering the somewhat less ambitious estimate that he's offering. It's not about your speed. It's about your endurance at or above threshold.

Little Doper wrote:

You're very likely good enough to run under an hour for 10 miles, but you might not have the endurance required.

You gave 1mi and 800 times, and someone asked for a 10k or, but why didn't you give a 5k time at least? Is this a time you are less proud of?

Also, is your Dad's PR for 10 miles 1:02:59, by chance? The that could be why he is giving you a prediction of 1:03

Well my 5k PR is almost a year old now, and I've had improvement since then. It's 17:15 on a really fast course (xc) when I was peaking- my next best time was 17:37. Based on my own experience of what I feel like running compared to then and my freshman track times I think I am maybe in 16:45 shape or better- I know you can't really say that kind of thing, but I'm at almost twice the mileage now and the ease I'm able to run what would have been difficult workouts (plus my improvement at shorter distances- I ran 5:05/2:14 freshman year) tells me I could run a lot faster.

I do think I wouldn't be well prepared to race that long, purely because 5k is my longest race up to this point.

No idea what my dad's 10mi PR is.

I've run 36:40 for 10k and still went under 1 hour in a 10 mile race, but it was close ,59:50. At the time i was running 2 hours for my long run every sunday.