Sub 60 10 mile training

you need to be sub 16 on 5k to be able to run sub 60 10 miler.

also what is your schedule like, how far/fast are your long runs?

The first time I went sub-60 for 10-miles was training run. Just kinda happened. I was doing an out-and-back run and hit 5 miles in 31, turned around and felt relaxed so I just cruised and hit it with a little push at the end.

I was more or a middle distance guy at the time;

2:03 800, 4:36 1600, 10:17 3200, 17:10 5k (xc)

TheXCrunner wrote:

you need to be sub 16 on 5k to be able to run sub 60 10 miler.

also what is your schedule like, how far/fast are your long runs?

No, you do not. That’s just garabage.

nope not true. Sub 60 is waaaaay easier for me than sub 16, which is super tough. I only went sub 16 once in highschool, but i ran 60 min 10 mile tempos a couple of times as workouts.

yeah the coach didnt tell me to do that, i just did them.

I agree with others, maybe you meant sub 17?

also long runs lately have been the same as easy runs, 12-14 starting pretty chill and working down to 7 flat pace, with most long and easy runs averaging out to 7:15-7:35.

Sorry, yes i meant sub 17 :)

you might wanna lower your average pace close to 7flat on your long runs.

I am currently running 12-14 miles between 6:45-7:00 and i can do sub 60 10miles with no problems. remember this all depends on your fitness level.

for you, I would suggest you try and close your last 2miles of your long runs at 6flat pace. when that gets easy try doing the last 3-4miles of your long runs at 6flat pace and before you know it you will be running sub 60 10miles like a boss!

You're already capable of running sub-60 for 10 miles. I'm a) old and b) not that fast, and I went through 10 miles in sub-59 in my last half marathon. It was a great race for sure, but I can't touch your PRs right now. (Recent mile in a peak race: 5:12; 3 miles in around 17:15.)

I'd say you'd need to increased your mileage, but you're already doing that. And I'd say do long intervals, but you're already doing that, too. If you can keep extending your endurance, you'll easily break 60. If you could find the right race or TT situation, you could probably do it today.

You should be right around 60 right now.

I did 60:56 when I was 16. I ran 2:07 indoors and 4:24 for 1500 outdoors that year.

I recently ran in the 4:40s for a mile time trial, run about 60 miles a week and just split 58:xx as part of a HM time trail this morning. I am much more speed oriented.

My take... you can crush 60 right now.

Ignore that sub 16 stupidity.

I ran 54:50 when I was consistently running about 16:20.

Today my gf has run under 52 minutes and has not broken 15:50.

nah, i ran 59:45 at the TC 10 mile last fall (hilly course) and I was nowhere near 17 flat shape. Maybe 17:30. OP could crush sub 60 unless he's at super low mileage.

Trump ❤️‘s Kushners wrote:

TheXCrunner wrote:

you need to be sub 16 on 5k to be able to run sub 60 10 miler.

also what is your schedule like, how far/fast are your long runs?

No, you do not. That’s just garabage.

Agreed. No way on earth are sub 16 5K and sub 60 10 miles remotely comparable.

When I was in 60 flat shape, I could run about 17 flat for 5K.

Eventually, I got better at both.

Everyone’s an experiment of 1 :-)

I was 4:18 1500, 28:50 8k (XC), never managed faster than 66min 10 miler. Also never ran more and ~55mpw at the top end (usually more like 45) so your move to more volume probably good.

From a lot of reading of those far more accomplished than me, I’ll throw in that adding more intensity into your long run is may be counterproductive for the aerobic stimulation you’re trying to get. Let other workouts target faster paced adaptations.

$0.02.

Agree. I ran 60:01 on a super hilly course when I was in around 17:20-30 shape for 5k.

Trump ❤️‘s Kushners wrote:

TheXCrunner wrote:

you need to be sub 16 on 5k to be able to run sub 60 10 miler.

also what is your schedule like, how far/fast are your long runs?

No, you do not. That’s just garabage.

Not sure how old you are or how long you've been running, but the longer endurance and strength stuff just takes time. It's easier to run those short, fast races when you are an inexperienced runner. You don't need to be able to run sub-60 to be a solid 5k cross runner.

Keep running your mileage. If you're running above 50, and running at true tempo/threshold pace (relaxed and not gasping for air at the end), you should be able to handle 5-6 miles of intervals at that pace. Miles with a minute rest, 2-3x 2 miles with 2 mins rest or any combinations. You could also try 40-45 minutes at slightly slower pace (6:10-6:15) or a 5-6 mile progression run where your last mile is around 6 or slightly faster (7, 6:45, 6:30, 6:15, 6:00).

My PR is 57:49, but before that I had only broken 60 a few times and all in the 59s. Each time I did it, I was running upper 50s-mids 60s in mileage, a track interval workout of 8k-10k, a tempo of 5-6 miles around 6:00 pace, and a long run of anywhere from 14-18 miles.

Speed clearly isn't the issue, so your focus should be on endurance- I was about your speed for 1600/3200 in high school, but I faded big time the couple times I tried to do a 15K at that age and only managed 1:05 or so. You're doing more miles than I was, though, so you should be better prepared.

I think the tempos are a good and necessary step- I would aim to hit 3x3200 in ~11:45, with 2:00 rest. I hit 59:3X for ten miles during a tune-up race this February, and that was one I was able to do comfortably. Continuous tempo of 30 mins at 6:00 pace would also be good. I think that corresponds to ~17:15 5K fitness for me, but I've been focused on longer distances now that I'm in my 30s, I probably couldn't run a 4:46 now.

I like the fast middle on long runs versus the fast finish other people suggested. You don't have to shoot for 6:00 pace, but try every other week if you can do your 12-14 mile long run as 2-3 easy, 8 miles around 6:20 pace, another 2-3 easy. That's a scaled-down version of something I would do for marathon training which should help if you're more used to 5Ks and 8Ks.

We would run under sixty minutes for ten miles pretty regularly in high school, whenever a couple guys were feeling ok and a run naturally progressed. We were all 4:30ish / 10:00ish / 16:30ish guys so you are not that far off. I think as you get older and get more miles in your legs you don't have to be as "fast" at the shorter distances.

What I would recommend is:

- continued higher volume, mostly just relaxed running. Do some drills and strides 2-3x per week.

- continued threshold work, like you have been doing. Anaerobic threshold is hour race pace, so this is convenient for you

- a long run involving more than just steady running. My personal view is that a 75min to 2hr run just fast enough to beat you up for a couple days but not fast enough to be relevant for any of the distances you are racing has perhaps the worst fatigue : benefit trade-off in all of athletics. It is unclear to me why people persist in this practice. If you're going to be out there for a while, make it worth something. You could try things like 20-40 mins steady - 10-15 x 1min on / 1min off - 5-10 mins steady - 15-20min progression if feeling good. Or just your normal long run winding it up the last 20-30mins if you're feeling good, getting down to 6min pace the last mile or two.

- don't get hurt. Consistency is so much more important than impressing your Strava buddies or whatever. I am now old but used to be a crazy fired up 18yr old, so I know how hard it is to listen to advice but please just trust me.

why the obsession with running 10 in under 60? Why not 2 in under 10?