A lady running sub 33? Top 7 in the country this year territory that.
I ran sub 45 today, was very very pleased. The idea of sub 40 makes my head explode, let alone sub 35!
It's all about progression with consistency over the years.
One year you're delighted with a certain time.
A few years on, you're disappointed, or blaming conditions for a time that was far quicker than what you ever dreamed possible years before.
tommygunn wrote (see)
One of the joys of running is it's not about what others do - it's about what you do. You run a time then it's your own time you have to beat.
So damn true!
Run 10k, if you gave your all then be happy with your time. Run 10k don't give 100% and feel you could have done more be disappointed. Its all personal.
I am running my first 10k in july and have just started training for it. I have not ran at all for the last 11 years. Am i right in thinking a time of around 45 mins for me (30 years old) would be good?
I think everything here shows just how subjective it all is.
Ive been running for a year or less now and i am by no means a natural runner. I ran a PB (admittedly flat) yesterday at 46 minutes. I was chuffed to bits. My 10ks started at around 65 minutes when I started.
This feels like a good 10k to me.
I have my first 10k in 3 weeks (caerphilly 10k), I have been running for 3 months now but varying between once and three times a week. My first race was a 5miler and did 41.07, that was very flat compared to where i train. I am targetting sub 55 for my first 10k, fingers crossed.
Jamie- if you did 41.07 for 5 miles, thats 8.13 m/per, 10k is only just over a mile further so not a substantial leap in distance to really require a drop off in pace so 55 mins seems a nailed on target, even if it were a reasonably hilly course. I would be aiming for sub 51/52 mins just to challenge myself.
a good time is one your happy with...always someone faster.
a good run is one that you enjoy.
dont stress about times..your doing great..
In training i only managed 44:40 for 5M, race day was much faster. I am basing my targets on what i can achieve in training so not be dissapointed, obviously after my first of each distance i will then have a race benchmark to aim for. Smashing my training target set based on training is a massive motivation boost.
I would base my race expectations/goals on my race times not training times. As i said above there is very little between a 5 miler and a 10k so no reason not to hit the same paces. I usually come in about 2-3 minutes short of race times in training despite feeling like i have given maximal effort.
As you say, you will get your benchmark at the first one you do and can develop it from there.
I think it is subjective but it kind of depends on the event, as someone else has mentioned. I'm not particularly fast (10k PB 46:30) but have picked up a few age category prizes along the way as well as team prizes (helps to have team-mates who can run 10k in sub 42 (on a day when the Great South Run took many of the better local runners away) and half marathons in sub 1 20!). I ran a 5 miler on Sunday and was 10th lady with just over 38 minutes. In a club runners only event I am lucky to finish in the top third, so it totally depends on who turns up. In a charity event I came 3rd. I've even managed a first lady finish in a parkrun, but was much slower than the usual winning time for that particular event.
I think anything under 45 is very respectable for a lady and under 38 minutes starts to look semi-elite and you should be able to get a podium finish at many events, if not the high profile ones. I notice that only one lady has run sub 32 so far this year in UKA events.
Hi, Completed the Caerphilly 10K yesterday, was fairly hilly but managed 49:44.
My benchmark is set now, so will look to keep improving. Next target to get my 5k to sub 25 (currently 25:08).
I've run 42.01 twice, both times in my late 40s, which is annoying! I'd be very very pleased to get under 42mins. I did a hilly 10k yesterday at Polesen Lacey in Surrey, which took me 48 minutes - I was the sixth MV50 to finish, which I considered pretty good (the best MV60 did 47 mins, so it's all about expectations!). I was chatting to the winner of the race, who fell over twice but still managed 38 mins, about 90 seconds ahead of second place - he claimed to have run 31 mins at age 37, which sounds very decent for his age.
Age should not be that big a barrier in 40's. There are guys i run with early to mid forties with a long running history who are currently hitting pb's.
For some inspiration, read this. he didnt start running until he was 37!
Top article that, DT. I do love how they chose such an incredibly flattering photo of Rees with 'effort' phlegm adorning his top lip and running down his chin!
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |