| Author |
Topic: 2007 Sub 40 10K Goal Thread |
Jim24315
Cool Runner |
 posted Aug-30-2007 11:45 AM
   
jrescpa,You are a ringer! I couldn't do that workout no matter how hard I tried and just ran 39:36. I won't be surprised at all if you break 19 in that 5k. You are a cinch for sub-40 in the 10. Good luck in your race
IP: Logged |
jrescpa
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-30-2007 05:11 PM
Cool. You just made my day. There are so many talented guys in my club, I have trouble judging where I am. I'm 6th fastest in the 45-49 age group in my club. We have about 100 members. We have one guy running 16:30 (national class masters) and another running 17:30 at age 46 so I'm not all that hot. I'm not sure If I'm a ringer after breaking 40 one time in Feb, but I'll take that as a compliment.  ------------------
My Profile [This message has been edited by jrescpa (edited Aug-30-2007).] [This message has been edited by jrescpa (edited Aug-31-2007).]
IP: Logged |
Jim24315
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-02-2007 11:02 AM
Yes, it was a compliment--and belonging to clubs such as the one you are a member of keep us from letting it go to our heads. I'm in one of those too. I remember when I moved from Phoenix, where I was one of top masters around, to the Bay Area in California. After joining a club here I thought they were going to make a big fuss over me until I ran a few workouts with those baracudas. On a good day I was lucky if I could crack the top 5 masters in that tiny club of less than 100 regulars. Anyway, by the looks of that workout you seem primed to move up a notch with the fast company you are keeping. Let us know how that 5k goes.
IP: Logged |
Mailbox Head
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-04-2007 12:04 PM
Well, I was hoping to have good results to post here today, but the hills were just too much for me on Saturday. I kept pretty consistent splits, but they were about 4 seconds too slow at 6:30 per mile. Overall, I can't be too dissapointed since the course was so tough, and I ended up 3rd overall in 40:20 (only about 100 participants). I'll have another crack at it on Sunday October 7th, and that course should be much easier so I should have a good shot at it.
IP: Logged |
bhearn
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-09-2007 11:54 AM
It looks like I'm not going to have a chance to run a flat 10K before my October 7th marathon. I did run a 1:28:58 half last weekend, on a not-too-difficult course, though there were some hills. I think that's a better performance than my 1:28:44 PR on a flatter course, a year and a half ago. Plus I think I left something on the course. I wasn't really thinking PR, or I would have pushed it harder; I was just pacing for 1:30 until I started to pick it up at 10 or so.So, I think I am right in there, if I just had a chance to prove it! There is a nice, flat, scenic race in Vancouver 3 weeks after the marathon... a 9.5K 
That should pretty accurately tell me whether I *could* go sub-40, at least.
IP: Logged |
Jim24315
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-09-2007 03:08 PM
Bob,
That half shoud defintely put you in the ballpark. McMillan's projections rate it as sub-40 and Daniels has it very close.
Good luck in the big one
Mailbox Head,
I remember reading your post the day you made it and adding your name to the "Hopefuls" list at the beginning of this thread. I had it in my mind that I congratulated you on your race, but evidently the thought didn't make it to the keyboard. In any case, that was a nice race, especially considering a tough course. The course can make all the difference. I will go out on a limb and predict that you WILL get it on done on Oct 7. Good luck.
[This message has been edited by Jim24315 (edited Sep-09-2007).]
IP: Logged |
jrescpa
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-16-2007 12:11 PM
I raced my first all out 5k of the year and only managed 20:03 so a 40:00 10k is looking like a stretch regardless of the fact that I ran that fast back in January. I feel good today, nothing is hurting and I had an enjoyable morning and a great post race breakfast. Next up is the Chicago Marathon that I plan to Gallawalk in 5 hours for fun.------------------
My Profile
IP: Logged |
JasonsDrivingForce
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 01:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jrescpa:
I ran some 800's at full workout intensity for the first time in months. 3:00 /2:53/ 2:52/ 2:52 with 3 min rest in between. I felt like I could have done one more but I quit after 4 to be safe and my legs feel great today. I think that bodes well for a 19:45 5k at my next race on Sept 15. The next 10k is on Nov 6.
I just ran some 400’s yesterday(My splits are below) and I still couldn’t manage better than a 42:59 for the 10K today. I can handle the speed events but the distance ones are just too tough for me. Great job to anyone who can meet this goal! 400 Splits(All consecutive in a 1 mile race)
1:11
1:20
1:23
1:22
------------------
My Profile
IP: Logged |
joev9
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 01:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jrescpa:
I raced my first all out 5k of the year and only managed 20:03 so a 40:00 10k is looking like a stretch regardless of the fact that I ran that fast back in January. I feel good today, nothing is hurting and I had an enjoyable morning and a great post race breakfast.
jrescpa, something is odd here. i would have a hard time with your 4x800 workout at 3:00/2:53/2:52/2:52 yet I ran a 19:45 this past Saturday. What kind of mileage are you doing? I would think with that kind of speed, your 5K time would be much faster. My guess is that your endurance is really holding your back. In my 5K on Saturday I felt like I could have run a couple more miles at 6:25 pace but just didn't feel like I had another gear to go faster than that. I felt very strong but not very speedy (if that makes sense). My mileage has been in the 50s without much speedwork, so that makes sense I guess.
IP: Logged |
MichiganFlyer
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 02:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jrescpa:
I ran some 800's at full workout intensity for the first time in months. 3:00 /2:53/ 2:52/ 2:52 with 3 min rest in between. I felt like I could have done one more but I quit after 4 to be safe and my legs feel great today. I think that bodes well for a 19:45 5k at my next race on Sept 15. The next 10k is on Nov 6.
Holy Snot thats fast.
The sub 20/ sub 40 is not about speed slow it down a little so you can get some more intervals in. I usually try 6 X 800 in 3:15 but with 90 seconds rest. My 5k times are around 20:30.
IP: Logged |
Jim24315
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 05:53 PM
Hey jrescpa,I'll have to join Joev9 and MichiganFlyer in piling on. Mileage and more threshold work will take you there if you are willing to put the time in. My 5k times have come down dramatically these past couple races while training for the half marathon. It's been long intervals, tempos, and long runs with almost nothing faster than 10k pace--usually slower. Even though I preach the benefits of this kind of training, the 5k breakthrough has surprised even me.
IP: Logged |
jrescpa
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 08:43 PM
I averaged 50 mpw for 12 weeks May-July - all easy base miles at b/n 8:30-9:30 pace. Since Aug 1, I've been averaging 40 and adding 1 workout a week. I'm coming down with a sore throat so maybe it was already affecting me on Saturday. My max HR is 184 and I ran the last 2.5 miles between 179 and 181. I was really pushing hard effort wise. I took your advise and did a more moderate workout on 9/2 when I ran 6 800's with 2 min rest as follows:
Avg HR Max HR
3:17 142 155
3:07 154 165
3:02 158 170
3:05 161 172
2:59 162 174
3:04 162 177 I realize the avg HR is meaningless but you can see from the max HR on each one that I was going pretty easy until the last 800. Too be honest, I'm dumbfounded as to why I couldn't break 20:00, unless I was already coming down with this virus. Maybe, also a bit of jet lag from a long flight on the 10th.
Thanks for the advice. ------------------
My Profile [This message has been edited by jrescpa (edited Sep-17-2007).]
IP: Logged |
tallrunner
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 09:05 PM
jrescaI am a sub 18 minute 5Ker and 43 and that 800 workout should give you a sub 20 easy...that was my 2 week marathon workout 8X800 at 2:50 each with 1:30 rest in between. That is a tough workout.. So maybe you had a virus with that kind of speed and base you should be able to go around 19 minutes for 5 and 39 and a half or so for a 10K... Tall
IP: Logged |
Jim24315
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-17-2007 11:30 PM
jrescpa,Although I think that longer intervals between 1000-1600 would be better than 800's, your training still looks pretty decent. The only explanations I can think of for you not breaking 20 are that you were coming down with something or that the course was long. I'd say wait until you feel good and give it another shot. I'm betting that you'll run much faster next time. Good luck
IP: Logged |
joev9
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-18-2007 08:12 AM
Yeah, I think Jim might be onto something. Was that 5K on a USATF certified course. I bet it was long by 0.1 mile or so. Your training is too good for you to not be running low 19s...
IP: Logged |
jrescpa
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-18-2007 12:40 PM
The course was certified. I'll plan to try my luck again on Oct 22 at the Santa Monica 5000. Thanks guys for the tips. .------------------
My Profile
IP: Logged |
bhearn
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-18-2007 03:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bhearn:
It looks like I'm not going to have a chance to run a flat 10K before my October 7th marathon.
Turns out there is one workable 10K I can run this weekend, two weeks before Portland. But it is not flat. What sort of time penalty would you expect from this profile?  (Altitude in feet; ignore the two spurious spikes.) I'm thinking somewhere between 30 sec. and a minute? It's frustrating, because I think I am in sub-40 shape. But probably not with that hill. If I pace myself appropriately going up it, maybe I crank it in from there on out... Bob
IP: Logged |
joev9
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-18-2007 04:27 PM
looks pretty steep going up and down. i find that i can only really let it rip on certain downhills, if it is too steep you end up braking and cannot make up the cost of the uphill. is this close enough to you that you can go and run the hill as part of a training run to see what it is like?
IP: Logged |
bhearn
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-18-2007 04:34 PM
Not really; it's about an hour and a half drive. I wonder whether there's a rule of thumb on when a grade is too steep to run fast on, and costs you more than it gains you?
IP: Logged |
jrescpa
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-18-2007 05:16 PM
Looks pretty nasty to me. You can try this calculator to get an adjusted time. http://runworks.com/calculator.htmlJon [This message has been edited by jrescpa (edited Sep-18-2007).]
IP: Logged |
MichiganFlyer
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-19-2007 11:37 AM
The uphill is going to cost you more than the downhill gives back. This 200' increase is pretty steep. I can easily see your time being 1 minute slower probably more. You should check race times from last year to see how it affected other runners.
IP: Logged |
bhearn
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-19-2007 01:28 PM
Yes, the uphill will cost more that the downhill will give back, but the question is, will the downhill give back anything at all, or is it too steep? quote:
Originally posted by jrescpa:
You can try this calculator to get an adjusted time. http://runworks.com/calculator.html
Thanks. I already had that site bookmarked, but forgot it had altitude-based adjustments. Unfortunately the grade makes a big difference. Anyway, it predicts a 38-second penalty, for whatever that's worth. If we assume that the downhill is too steep to provide any benefit, but not steep enough for any penalty, then the result changes to a 1:20 cost. Ugh. Well, at least I have been getting in lots of hills recently, including 1500 ft. gain over 8 miles in a relay leg last weekend. Which is not quite the same grade as this 10K, so I do have some perspective.
IP: Logged |
joev9
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-19-2007 01:49 PM
the good thing about that hill is it's placement with the peak almost exactly at the midpoint. at least then you will definitely have a negative split, probably a pretty big one...
IP: Logged |
bhearn
Cool Runner |
posted Sep-19-2007 02:09 PM
Well that's true. But then I negative split everything, even Boston.
IP: Logged |
Pete OBoyle
Member |
posted Sep-21-2007 12:10 PM
Just found this thread and am catching up on all the posts because my goal is to break 40 for a 10K -- again. Actually, I'm 52 and broke 40 way back in 1979 on a course on an airport runway. I've managed to break 40 in the 80's, 90's as well and just realized the 00's are coming to a close and it would be nice to break 40 in one more decade as well. My biggest problem is finding a flat fast 10K that's also in the winter months, as I don't run well in heat and humidity (I live in South Carolina -- enough said). 10ks are relatively rare around here and I've only run one this year -- Cooper River Bridge, in 40:58. It is not a fast course, although I did manage to run under 40 on it one time about 10 years ago. I'm running a 12K tomorrow. I'm also training for NY marathon, so I'll probably focus on breaking 40 next year. Would appreciate hearing about fast 10k races in SC, Ga., or NC. And no, Peachtree in July is not one of them.
IP: Logged |
