Cool Running :: 2007 Sub 40 10K Goal Thread

> home > community > discussion forums > mainstream racing > 2007 sub 40 10k goal thread (Page 14)

| > rules | > faq | > e-mail to a friend | moderator: sue, Warrior1971

2007 Sub 40 10K Goal Thread

Topic is 21 pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

> next newest topic | > next oldest topic

Author	Topic: 2007 Sub 40 10K Goal Thread
laker Cool Runner	posted Jul-19-2007 05:13 PM quote: Originally posted by Jim24315: With complete conviction I can say that I am every bit as motivated as ever. In fact, to break 40 for 10k at this stage of my life would be one of my greatest thrills ever since I started running. Good luck Jim. To give another answer to Joe's question. I have been racing for over 25 years straight with no real down time. My times are much slower now and although I admit it has been frustrating at times, it still feels pretty much the same. racing is racing, always yourself and others to compete against. I enjoy it as much now as ever, I hope you will to. IP: Logged
gcklo Cool Runner	posted Jul-19-2007 06:34 PM quote: Originally posted by norrin radd: Thanks for the reminder. I just signed up for the Alameda race too. That's three of us. Any more takers? I'm cautiously optimistic. I have 5k test this weekend at the 4th Sunday run in Oakland. It's a bit of an odd one this Sunday though, since the winner is the person who best predicts their time so no watches are allowed. I'm just going to use it to see what I can do at 5k now having not done one in a while. Hopefully if I put down 19.30 for my predicted time I can either get close to that and be a predicted time winner or exceed that and be well pleased. (Naysayers may notice a third option that I am trying not to consider). My 5k best is from last year so hopefully at the very worst I'll beat 19:51. (Actually come to think of it I beat that in the first lap of my last 10k). I may have successfully added a profile signature below so Jim, gcklo, be on the look out for a tall(ish), baldy bloke. I'll probably even be wearing this shirt and I think all my shorts are black. The agonized expression is fairly typical too and not restricted to running. Bob, good luck on your run this weekend and on the 4th. I also registered for this oakland 5k but i didn't realize we were not allowed to wear a watch. Frankly, I don't know how to run without my gps. I don't know if I even put in a predicted time on the active registration. I don't care about winning or losing at all. I just want to get to 20:30. On 2nd thought, I guess I will just give watchless a try. See how I will do. If I can find you, may be I can try to be within 100 to 150 yards of you and have a chance to hit my goal. [This message has been edited by gcklo (edited Jul-20-2007).] IP: Logged
Dakota Ridgerunner Cool Runner	posted Jul-20-2007 07:09 PM On racing without a watch, I'm normally the kind of guy who checks splits at every opportunity. I did a 5k personal time trial on the track a couple months ago, and took splits every 200 meters to make sure I was on track to make my goal, which was sub-20. Well, I blew up spectacularly. At my big goal race this year (Bolder Boulder on May 28) I took splits every kilometer and became quite disappointed when I was not able to stay on pace for a sub-40. Then on July 4 I did another 10k just "for fun" and decided not to look at my watch for the majority of the race. I just ran by feel from miles 1-5 (a volunteer was at the 1-mile mark calling out splits). Midway through the last mile I checked my watch just to get some idea of where I was. I was at 35 minutes, which only gave me a vague notion whether sub-40 was possible, since I didn't know exactly how far I had left to run at the time. So, I just ran my heart out and ended up breaking 40 by 6 seconds. The interesting thing is that if I'd checked my splits throughout the race, I would have undoubtedly thought I was blowing up. My slowest mile was 6:51, and that was mile 5. If I'd seen my split at the time (I pushed the split button on my watch but didn't look at it), I would have concluded that I ran too fast at the start. I would have been disappointed and surely would have lost some motivation. I guess my point is that it can be good to run by feel. And sometimes you're capable of sustaining a faster pace than you think. I know I surprised myself that day, because the race really felt more like a 5k pace than a 10k pace. Maybe I needed to adjust my idea of what 10k pace should feel like! So, run without the watch at this particular race, give it your best, and hopefully you'll be pleased with the results. Good luck to everyone racing this weekend! IP: Logged
norrin radd Cool Runner	posted Jul-22-2007 04:39 PM Just a quick update with my weekend 5k result. A no-watch 'predict your time race' that I was using to judge my readiness for a 10k sub-40 attempt 2 weeks away. I put down a predicted time of 19:30, started out fairly fast as usual but managed to hold a pretty good pace all the way around. My legs felt tired, probably due to too much packing and moving yesterday, plus a leaving party in the evening. Even though they felt tired I'm not sure that held me back much and I felt I didn't leave much on the course. Finishing time.....19:32! My guess is that I did something like 6.10, 6.15, 6.35 (slight rise that always kills me), 0.32. I actually won second prize in the guess your time competition with this (first place was also 2 seconds off but for a longer predicted time so they won a tie based on greater proportional accuracy.) Overall, quite pleased to get a new PR, and am, still, cautiously optimistic for the 10k. I know that most race predictors call for 19:15 or less but I hear from Jim that the Alameda course is fast, I have done 19:12 on the track in a time trial (some while ago actually) and am planning on being better rested for the Alameda race. I'm pretty sure I'll get close and am looking forward to finding out how close I can get..... This will also be my last race in the Bay Area, we will leave for Santa Barbara about a week after that. Like the idiot I am I just signed up for the Labor Day weekend Pier to Peak half marathon in Santa Barbara. 13.1 miles, 4,000 ft of elevation gain. Oh the insanity. IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Jul-23-2007 03:33 PM norrri radd, That was a tough beat in the predict your time contest In all sincerity I believe you have a big chance at Alameda. I think we both would do well to go out at as close to goal pace as possible, rather than try to bank seconds. I've done the same thing in my recent shorter races as you just did, going out in low/mid teens and fading later. You did, however, have a better excuse than me considering the layout of the Lake Merrit loop. 6:26 should feel reasonably comfortable early after those kinds of beginnings--and we WILL need to feel comfotable early to have a chance of hanging in there for the full 10k. Keep in touch. IP: Logged
norrin radd Cool Runner	posted Jul-23-2007 11:16 PM I totally agree. I feel I am at a position where I have an outside shot at sub-40. On a good day if everything comes together I may get lucky but a big part of that will be running the smartest race possible. It sounds like you may be in a similar position but I've got more faith in you than I do in myself. It occurred to me this evening, after reading your post, that with only two weeks to go, any remaining training is only going to have a negligible effect on my time (assuming I don't stop altogether). What I can do though is practice running at 6:26 pace, and more importantly starting and reaching this pace quickly and accurately from a standing start. With a few sessions practicing this I'm hoping I can go out at a much more appropriate pace. Tonight I ran a mile and a half up to a track to warm up, did a 6.26 mile (1.36 laps) from a standing start (laps at 1.35, 1.38, 1.35, 1.36) a slower mile (7.30 pace) and then picked up the pace for another mile at 6.26 pace (laps at 1.33, 1.38, 1.36, 1.34). I kept it to two because I didn't want to turn this into a tough interval session. IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Jul-23-2007 11:46 PM We are thinking the same way. I did 3 x 1600 last Wednesday, hiitting almost every 400 in 96 (6:24, 6:23, 6:24). That comes out to 6:26 a mile, just a hair under the required 6:26.1 What I wasn't counting on, however, was doing the job I did on my legs Saturday during a hill workout. It was only 4 x 2 minutes, but the hill was so steep that I am still very sore today. Because my legs were moving so slow getting up it, I underestimated how hard I was working. A training error on my part, but no sign of injury thus far. Hopefully the soreness will go away soon. IP: Logged
norrin radd Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 02:35 AM I felt good on a run tonight so I was inspired to map out the Alameda race: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1172079 Check out that wonderful flat topography.... The start and the finish may not be exactly correct but it's probably close since it came out at 6.28 miles. There are two certified courses with very slightly different finishes but this one looks closest to the one on the event website. I haven't been to Alameda for several years but I seem to remember an awesome breakfast place...... Jim, it sounded like you'd run this course before - are the mile posts well marked? ------------------ My Profile [This message has been edited by norrin radd (edited Jul-26-2007).] IP: Logged
bobscamman Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 08:05 AM Thursday - bright, sunny, 87 degrees and humid I had a really nice and different training run on the Beach to Beacon 10K course which is my goal 10K that I am running on August 4th. I wrote a report on this because of the unusual things that happened and you can find it here if you wish to read it: http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum13/HTML/010642.shtml Otherwise in short: 6.2 miles - 47:32 - (7:38) Avg HR - 147 / Max 168 1 - 7:55 - 131/142 2 - 7:43 - 146/152 3 - 7:38 - 146/153 4 - 7:38 - 151/155 5 - 7:38 - 152/160 6 - 7:30 - 163/168 .2 - 1:31 - 163/168 This was really a good training run for me under these conditions which are about as bad as they could possibly be on race day...hot and humid! I felt great and was able to hit my target pace (marathon pace) and maintained it with relative ease and even picked it up a bit the last hilly mile to finish strong. I wanted to simulate my approach to race as much as possible with one exception and that was that my pace was about 1:13 over what I absolutely need for that sub 40 10K. I'm feeling pretty optomistic about my chances and at the very least I know that my 10K PR of 41:27 should fall at this race. ------------------ My User Profile "Keep on Running" Bob IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 09:36 AM norrin radd, It's been 16 years since I've run it, so I can only make a calculated guess about the mile markers. It would seem that I would remember if they didn't have them rather than if they did. I'm looking at the flier right now...yes, it says "split times each mile". I can vaguely remember the start, the finish, that it was flat, and I do know that I ran a good time. They only had 400+ last year, so it's not nearly as big as it was in the old days. Breakfast? Wouldn't that be nice if we could be celebrating sub-40's together. Confidence is up and down for me. I still have to consider myself an underdog, since it would take my best race in years to get there. I ran the 3 x 1600 x 200 again yesterday (6:23, 6:24, 6:23), hitting close to even 96's all the way, and although it felt pretty good, the thought of doing of doing 6 of them with no jog breaks is very daunting, to say the least. Also, that last 5k I ran on the track says I'm not really close. I honestly believe that you have a very good shot. You went out too fast in that last 5k and still ran a good time on a not-so-fast course. Also, you had a nice half-marathon earlier this year that says you can handle the distance with no problem. Bob, Nice prep for Beach to Beacon IP: Logged
JasonsDrivingForce Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 10:50 AM quote: Originally posted by norrin radd: I felt good on a run tonight so I was inspired to map out the Alameda race: http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=1172079 Check out that wonderful flat topography.... Wow that course is crazy flat! It only changes elevation by 28 feet in the whole 10K race? Here is the flattest and fastest 10K I know of in our area! It rises 111 feet in one long continuous hill for 3 miles! You should see the hilliest 10K course in our area! It rises and falls 100+ feet 5 times in the 6.2 miles. I need to move to the beach! Sub 40 for the 10K in my area is really tough! http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=525556 ------------------ My Profile IP: Logged
joev9 Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 11:03 AM i ran the "toughest 10K in new england" last year, the covered bridge 10K in Jackson, NH and the first two miles were all uphill and the first mile rose 500 feet from the start. it was brutal... IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 11:20 AM The Alameda course is your basic flat, fast course, but there is nothing crazy fast about it. It is a certified loop, with start and finish only a few feet apart. It is very fair--in my opinion this is the most fair layout that there is. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of flat courses around the country. The point-to-point courses with net downhill are usually the fastest, alhough some of them can be challenging if the ups and downs are extreme. I will say that we have a great selection to choose from here in Calfiornia. If you want hills, we have them, and you like it flat we have that too. There is usually something happening within driving distance every weekend--a great temptation for over racing, btw. IP: Logged
JasonsDrivingForce Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 12:18 PM quote: Originally posted by joev9: i ran the "toughest 10K in new england" last year, the covered bridge 10K in Jackson, NH and the first two miles were all uphill and the first mile rose 500 feet from the start. it was brutal... Yea that race sounds more like mountain climbing than running. I thought a net downhill race is not a �certified� race? That would definitely be fast. We don�t have anything like that around here. ------------------ My Profile IP: Logged
joev9 Cool Runner	posted Jul-26-2007 01:30 PM i think you can have a certified downhill course but it wouldn't be considered record eligible. the certification is that the distance is accurate. the record eligible is based on being within a set limit of percent downhill (i don't know what the limit is) and also can be wind dependent. usatf link: http://www.usatf.org/events/courses/certification/ IP: Logged
Seymourcol Member	posted Jul-30-2007 12:53 PM Howdy, I'm a newbie here and stumbled across this forum by accident while googling. I'm hoping to make a sub 40 10K myself this year. In theory I should be able to do it and have my sights on a 10K in Toronto this September. However that could be over ambitious. I'm not running anyway near that at present and being used to the Irish cliamte, Toronto in early September could post some hot temperatures. I've been running since a very young age and posted some decent times as a mid teen but won't get close to them now at 37. I made a comeback to running in 04 but have suffered with some injuries since. I have posted a 67.50 for 10 miles and 32.30 for 5 miles in the last 2 years but only a 37min 5 mile recently (2 weeks ago). My latest injury was an ankle sprain in early June which did keep me out for 4 weeks. I know it takes a lot of training to reach your goals but I find I have been putting the training in and not getting anywhere. Is it possible I could be pushing myself too much or not enough? I am training 4 - 5 days a week and realise injuries don't help but still I find it difficult to get there when injury free. IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Jul-30-2007 10:45 PM Welcome Seymour, If you could tell us more about your training I'm sure there are several of us who would be happy to give you some feedback. How many miles per week are you running now? What are your key workouts? Paces for workouts and easy runs? Are you over the ankle sprain now--free of injuries? My advice would be not to put a time limit on your goal. Sub-40 by September doesn't sound possible from what you've told us. However, the 5 and 10 milers you had in last couple years would put you in range. Mid 31's and 66's are equivalent 5 and 10 mile times for sub-40 10k. With some good training you should have a shot. At 37 you are certainly young enough. I actually ran faster in my early 40's than I did in late 30's. IP: Logged
Seymourcol Member	posted Jul-31-2007 09:44 AM Hi Jim, My mileage per week would be between 25-30 miles. Normally a long run Sun 6-10 miles. (Only getting back into doing longer than 6 miles of recent) 4-5 miles Mon. Intervals Tues. 6-8 miles Thurs. Saturday could be anything. Last week I ran about 33 miles with no interval training. This week has started with a 6 on Sunday. Rest yesterday and will do intervals tonight. Comtemplating a 1 mile track race tomorrow night (maybe not ideal) A run thursday and then we'll see. The ankle sprain was bad enough, went over on a water bottle in a race. I started back on it earlier than advised with some light jogging. It still swells somewhat but gives me no problems when running. Slight fear of going over on it again. I seem to be free of injuries otherwise but my legs don't feel anything like they did when I was younger. I really feel like it takes a long time to get moving these days. I don't really have any key workouts at present nor do I put a watch on my runs. I just downloaded (from this site) a 12 week 10K intermediate program which I was going to start at 7 weeks working back from my race date in Sept. I accept your advice on setting the sub 40 goal so early, I set a sub 65 10 mile target last year and it never materialised but injury also played it's part. In some ways I feel setting a time at all is not the way forward and getting a routine training plan and enjoying my running is the key to getting the times down. My next race bar tomorrow night is a 5 mile on August 11th. Hope I've given you enough info. Appreciate the advise. IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Aug-01-2007 03:04 PM Seymourcol "Is it possible I could be pushing myself too much or not enough?" Hard to answer if you don't keep track of workout times. Your mileage doesn't seem like too much though. In fact, I think it would help a lot to get up to 40's if you can do it without getting injured. Most everyone from this thread who has broken 40 these past 2 years has had a good mileage base. Good luck in your quest [This message has been edited by Jim24315 (edited Aug-01-2007).] IP: Logged
norrin radd Cool Runner	posted Aug-03-2007 02:46 PM Big weekend for the sub-40 10k group. Unless plans have changed Bob is going to show us how it's done on Saturday in the Beach to Beacon 10k. Hmm, that sounds tough aren't beaches generally at sea level and beacons generally at, well, beacon level? Maybe it's a cliff top beacon..... Good luck and we'll await your report. Sunday is the Alameda race for Jim and myself shooting for sub-40 and gcklo shooting for sub 44. weather.com has the conditions on Sunday morning being 58, 10% chance of rain and 10mph winds from the WSW. No problem there. I'm fairly confident I'll get to see 40:00:00 on their promised big digital clock. The big question is whether I'll have crossed the finish line yet..... ------------------ My Profile IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Aug-03-2007 05:18 PM Hi all, The countdown is on, although I don't know what happened to Bob. He hasn't been heard from in several days. He is usually a daily regular on the 50 plus thread. It's looking like conditions should be close to ideal at Alameda. I'll look for guys there. John, you shouldn't be hard to spot but no pictures for gcklo (George). Profile says 5'6" and 129. See you there IP: Logged
gcklo Cool Runner	posted Aug-04-2007 12:29 AM quote: Originally posted by Jim24315: Hi all, The countdown is on, although I don't know what happened to Bob. He hasn't been heard from in several days. He is usually a daily regular on the 50 plus thread. It's looking like conditions should be close to ideal at Alameda. I'll look for guys there. John, you shouldn't be hard to spot but no pictures for gcklo (George). Profile says 5'6" and 129. See you there Hi John,Jim, Good luck to you guys. I have a lot of confidence on both of you breaking 40. I came down with a minor flu or cold but I think I should be fine this Sun. So, I will still be attempting my sub 44. Hope to run into you guys. IP: Logged
gcklo Cool Runner	posted Aug-05-2007 04:33 PM quote: Originally posted by gcklo: Hi John,Jim, Good luck to you guys. I have a lot of confidence on both of you breaking 40. I came down with a minor flu or cold but I think I should be fine this Sun. So, I will still be attempting my sub 44. Hope to run into you guys. How did you guys do? I just recovered online to hit my goal. Interestingly, my watch showed 43:30 but the race clock showed 43:40. Either way, I hit my goal. My next goal will be sub-43 for the next 10k. May be one day I can attempt sub 40. This Alameda Run for the park 10k race was very well-organized. Weather is almost perfect. There was even some drizzling but it was good. There was some wind. I had to draft behind a very good female winner from 5 to 5.5 mile or so before gathering my last push to finish the race well. Any out of town folks, if you happen to be in the SF Bay Area in Aug next time, this is one race that I would recommend. ------------------ Happy running ! My Profile IP: Logged
Jim24315 Cool Runner	posted Aug-05-2007 04:40 PM Just got back from the Alameda Parks 10k where I ran 39:36. I am very, very pleased to have finally achieved this goal after many months of hard work and plenty of doubts along the way. I had the pleasure of spending some time with John "norrin radd" while I was there and will let him tell his own story rather than spill the beans now. We were unable to find George "gcklo" but hope he had a nice race. Thank you everyone for the all the support you've given me. Will say more later. JIm IP: Logged
norrin radd Cool Runner	posted Aug-05-2007 04:46 PM Sorry I didn't see you there. I just finished posting a somewhat lengthy report on the Boomers board which always seems to appreciate a good race report: http://www.coolrunning.com/forums/Forum13/HTML/010732.shtml Bottom line for this board is that I achieved my goal with time to spare - 39:39 - and that Jim demolished his goal but I'm sure he will tell his own story. Congratulations on achieving your goal and good luck getting your 10k time down further. I just looked back at my times and it took me 10 months to go from a 43:51 10k to todays 39:39. I have no idea if this is fast, slow or average. John ------------------ My Profile IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Time (US).	> next newest topic \| > next oldest topic Topic is 21 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Administrative Options: > Close Topic \| > Archive/Move \| > Delete Topic Hop to: