I wasn't really doing any structured training as such, just going out 3 or so times a week and trying to improve. I'd previously been more into longer distance running, but realised that I was better over shorter distances.
Luckily my new local run is flat/paved. Yours sounds similar to the Havant one I did a couple of times - absolutely killed me owing to not anticipating the terrain/hills as you say. Did it around 2 minutes slower than usual as I recall.
Thanks for the replies. Perhaps I should report progress back..
Charlie, it's good to hear you've progressed so quickly in a similar position. I'd say it was around April last year I was running 21 mins. Note your comments about alternating some weeks; I've always been all or nothing to be honest and tend to try to maintain a set pace, so perhaps I'll give this ago
I was wondering whether anyone might have some advice for me on this subject.
Last night I went out for the first time in over a year and completed a 5k route in around 27 mins, I used to run it in 21.
I'm interested in joining in with the recently established local park run (part reason for the re-invigoration) and wondered whether I could realistically look to improve simply by covering the distance at max effort every Saturday morning, with maybe a slower and more enjoyable 10k run in the week.
I have no doubt that the first 4-5 minutes will drop off quickly but fear I might plateau once I get close to my PB. I find it really hard to motivate myself for fast training runs; much preferring longer distances at an easier pace and saving my best for when there're other runners around me...
I'm in no place to say yes/no in terms of whether it's going to be good for your health, but:
I decided in February 2012 that I wanted to take part in the Brighton marathon, which was two months away
At the time, I was overweight: 6' 3" and 16st 7. However, I was only 23 so relatively young.
I ran up to 5 times a week, very slowly (11 min mile), and gradually built my distance up from 2 miles. At first, I was struggling after the first mile.
Two months later I'd increased my distance to 16 miles.
On the day, I managed 19 miles before I had to give in and walk the remainder. At the 13 mile point I felt perfectly fine and very strong.
I probably went about it all the wrong way and did myself no good but for me, a half marathon would have been a breeze. There are of course a number of variants such as age, gender and weight, so for you it could be a completely different story!
The reason I don't think BMI is always a great indicator of how your body type affects athletic performance, is because I personally know people who have a BMI of 25 or above (overweight) but win races and look to be prime phisical specimens (no fat or excess muscle). I wasn't saying ignore your BMI, that would be nonsensical, by saying don't take "too much" stock from it, I was simply suggesting that a high number may not necessarily mean that you're not built for running (although it often does).
I only mentioned picking up a weight because it can better put things into perspective. You seem to think I'm suggesting that me running = Millsy running + 35kg which is not the case. The only message I was tyring to relay was that more weight generally equals more energy expended, and although height defititely comes into it to some extent, there seems to be no scienfic research to suggest by how much?
If you can direct me to any such article, or answer on a scientific or evidential basis then please do?