I've only been running recreationally for a couple of years so i'm be no means an expert, but I think it's all relative and depends on your fitness background. There are people in my club who have grown up around running and were started in it when they were children. They would see anything under 40 minutes as being a reasonable time for a female. In contrast, many of my friends who do not run think I am incredible being able to run 10k at all without stopping, so any time in their eyes is 'good'. My perception of my time is that is is 'good' considering I used to be a smoking couch potato a few years back, but not that it is a good time compared to most runners my age.
Sounds like a good time to me. If you enter races you can usually see from the average time how your time compares. I think people will always have different perceptions of what is good. What matters is that it is a good time for you, I think.
Times are all relative. What constitutes a good or average time depends upon what you are basing it on. Generally (for senior men) sub 30/31 would be elite and sub 33 semi elite. Beyond that you are all on opinion. My personal take is that sub 35 would be a good club runner (and top 10 for many local races), sub 38 decent club runner, sub 40 average club runner, sub 45 improvers. There does also seem to be a bit of consensus that if you can run a sub 40 you are considered a reasonable runner.
I think generally speaking and without reference to elite runners or good club runners, a time somewhere between 40-50mins would be considered a good time certainly by persons who are non runners. It is of course all relative but to be hitting sub 40min times requires alot of training and a certain amount of natural aerobic ability. Sometimes the ability is innate and it would only take alot of training to improve on this (if you don't have the innate ability) and conversely if you have.
Age, diet, liefstyle, preparation are all factors that can be worked upon. Personally, I have started taking 10k racing more seriously and I'm presently buiding up to the Manchester 10k which I'm running for Diabetes UK. I'm taking on smaller 10k's as practice both for pre race preparation (which I'm awful at) and tactics. I came in at 44.03 in my first competitive 10k run for several years so there's only hope that this can be improved upon!
Like I say though, I suspect that even with practice and dedication I will struggle to come in sub 40mins and come anywhere near the level of good club runners, maybe I'm wrong..we'll see....
Back in 2005 I was able to hit 33 mins for a 10k. I had an injury and was out for almost 9 months.
Since then I've not raced much and generally have done a few marathons and 1/2 marathons.
I did my first 10k in ages on Sunday last week in Wimbledon and clocked 38mins and 10 secs. I was aiming for 38 mins. I suppose the steep hill and going the wrong way set me off that time.
I'm trying to push myself down to 35 mins before the end of the year. I am aiming at a 10k every 4 weeks.
All depends on who you're comparing yourself with I suppose. A 40 minute 10K time would be pretty damn fast in a mass participation charity event, but pretty damn slow in a small event full of dedicated club runners. My dad always said 42 minutes was what everyone at his running club considered a 'serious' time.That was 30 years ago though, and I suspect 42 minutes would now be thought of as rather slow by the serious runners at my club.
And in case that sounds like a snotty elitist answer, I'd like to qualify it by adding that my own PB is 52 minutes
40-45 minutes is a respectable time but to be classed as a good runner...you need to do a sub 40 for it,dont you....
(one of my goals for this year)
I have always considered these times to be bench marks which if you reach you can say your training is working
sub 20mins 5 k
40mins 10 k or faster
1:30 HM.or faster
3 hours Marathon or faster
I would say if you can do these then your doing much more that is necessary to simply run a distance or compete against the majority of those who run. Your on the outer edges of what can be called "competitive" but have significant potential and personal drive.
After a few years of running if you being true to yourself you know that its not "all relative" That some times are better than others because of how much effort each bench mark takes to reach.That to run a 20minute 5 k is simply more difficult than a 21 or 22 or 24 but not as hard as an 17 16 or 15.
Though when you can run a 19 minute 5k you will find that it takes significantly less time to get to 18 minutes due to what you have learnt about conditioning.
Also one other thing.
Do not underestimate the importance of competition in achiving a fast time
You may run on your own and get 42 minutes, but I would say in a race you may get 41.
Well on your own you havent got me breathing down your neck from mile 4, and there is no way your going to let a smart arse know it all like me beat you home.
Depends on your age as well. I'm 48 and would say a sub 40 minute 10k is seriously fast.Its my aim, as is a sub 20 minute 5k.
when I was 41 years old I ran a 10k race in 45 mins and I was quite chuffed. 19 years later, after having completely packed in running in for 17 years and then started again after being inspired by my daughter, I'm building up again. Currently my 5k is about 30 mins - I'm happy with that, more to come! Why did I stop!
If you are interested then there are some free 10k training plans here:
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 |