10 second rule (of thumb)

[Strider]

Read it / heard it / talked about it ... that in general the difference between your 5k / 10k / 1/2 / Full pace is about 10 seconds per km. Just wondering how close everyone is to this rule. For me is seems to be a pretty consistent 12 secs.

5k - 4:00
10k - 4:12
1/2 - 4:24
Full - 4:36

[blank]

I hadn't heard of this rule, but I know my times are out of whack. They are the following.

5K 4:12/K
10K 4:29/K
Half 5:01/K
Full 5:24/K

All of these are from 2008. The 5K was my best run all year, 100% effort. The 10K I ran it just to PB, not flat out; the same with the Half. I have never trained properly for a full, but I am now.

In 2009 I hope to bring my times more in line with each other by training hard for the marathon and racing the shorter distances a lot more often.

[ian]

My problem is that I don't race all 4 distances on a regular basis. As far as I can estimate, though, the rule is close for me:

5K: 3:32 (2008 time trial)

10K: 3:42 (using the last 10K of a 10M race in 2008)

21K: 3:55 (using a 2007 PB which is now a bit soft)

42K: 4:04 (2008 PB)

[Stella]

This is a very interesting concept, and one I'm going to pay attention to in 2009, as it will be the year of getting back up to speed for me.

When I was training consistently though, my times worked out to this:

5k: 3:54
10k: 4:12
21.1k: 4:24
42.2k: 4:39

Considering all the courses to be somewhat equal in difficulty, I wonder if this identifies weaknesses I may have and areas I should work on in my training.

[dgrant]

My 10K PB is out-of-date now, but:

5K 3:52 (first 5K of a 2008 5mi race)
1/2 4:20
Full 4:57


Hmmm... gotta work on the ol' endurance.

[ian]

This is a very interesting concept, and one I'm going to pay attention to in 2009, as it will be the year of getting back up to speed for me.

When I was training consistently though, my times worked out to this:

5k: 3:54
10k: 4:12
21.1k: 4:24
42.2k: 4:39

Considering all the courses to be somewhat equal in difficulty, I wonder if this identifies weaknesses I may have and areas I should work on in my training.

These 4 paces, in the context of the specific distances, represent VDOT values of about 51, 49, 49, and 48.5. This indicates that your VO2 is a relative strength as a runner. If longer races are goals, lactate threshold work should be the secondary focus (with overall volume being the first).

[AirForceRunner]

Neat idea...mine are all over the place.
1 Mile-3:34
5 km-3:57
8 km-4:13
10 km-4:16
Half-5:11

[Stella]

This is a very interesting concept, and one I'm going to pay attention to in 2009, as it will be the year of getting back up to speed for me.

When I was training consistently though, my times worked out to this:

5k: 3:54
10k: 4:12
21.1k: 4:24
42.2k: 4:39

Considering all the courses to be somewhat equal in difficulty, I wonder if this identifies weaknesses I may have and areas I should work on in my training.

These 4 paces, in the context of the specific distances, represent VDOT values of about 51, 49, 49, and 48.5. This indicates that your VO2 is a relative strength as a runner. If longer races are goals, lactate threshold work should be the secondary focus (with overall volume being the first).

Thank Ian - this is very insightful. I know that I generally do most of my LSDs in the garbage zone (zone 2) and my biggest problem is being disciplined to stay in zone 1. Something I'll definitely be working on this year.

[Jwolf]

This really isn't that new for most people because it's the same concept as using a race equivalency calculator like Daniels vDot or McMillan to predict one race time from another. The "rule" I read in a Frank Shorter book actually says that you slow down by about 10 sec/km as the race distance doubles.

Mine are a bit out of whack for sure. My fastest pace is for 10K, and 5K is not much faster because I don't train specifically for it. My half and marathon times also don't line up because I need to improve my aerobic fitness and speed at lactate threshold.

My paces:
5K: 4:40/km
10K: 4:42/km
21.1K: 5:15/km
42.2K: 5:50/km

note that according to Daniels vDot, my paces should be:
5K: 4:32
21.1K: 4:57
42.2K: 5:08

[Strider]

I guess what I was getting at with this is if you agree with the "rule" and if so it really is a good and simple indicator of weaknesses and potential.

add to that it is also an easy way to calculate your TEMPO pace

[Doonst]

Mine show the fact that the half distance is where I have spent most of my efforts; still haven't mastered the full and haven't prioritized the 5 or 10 K.

5K- 4:24
10K- 4:30
21.1K- 4:36
42.2 K-5:03

[Robbie-T]

5k 3:40
10k 3:51
Half 4:00
Full 4:13

I know I have more potential at 5k-Half distances.

[bruyere]

add to that it is also an easy way to calculate your TEMPO pace

'Cuz.....your tempo pace should be...?
Help - I'm blanking! (I know I've read it a million times.) And I'm planning a tempo this week, so this is timely!

ETA: And if you do your tempo runs based on past times, are you training to get faster or to stay at those times? (That old... do I target where I want to be, or where I am now?) ... OK. That's a hijack. Sorry. I'll ask another time.

ETA (again): Ha! And look at the next thread topic... "Tempo run"... perhaps I'll just go read there.

[Strider]

'Cuz.....your tempo pace should be...?

See the Tempo Thread - Ya can tell where my mind it too

http://www.runningmania.com/forum2/view ... hp?t=31107

[bruyere]

'Cuz.....your tempo pace should be...?

See the Tempo Thread - Ya can tell where my mind it too

http://www.runningmania.com/forum2/view ... hp?t=31107

Posting at the same time as me! :p

[eljeffe]

This is just based on my PRs from 2008.

5k - 3:47/km - Raced this distance once. Could get faster with experience.
10k - 3:54/km - I always seem to lag a bit through 6-8k.
half - 4:18/km - I have yet to run a half flat out... could be faster.
full - 4:29/km - pacing troubles are holding me back here.

[horselady]

Very cool
Mine are pretty close
5k 5:05
10K 5:15
1/2 5:29

never done a full but that would mean 5:39 which is bang on the 5:40 pace I am aiming for.
Hmmm maybe that 4 hour marathon is in reach....

[Smitty]

I guess it's my least fav run, the long run I have to work on.


5k 4:11 (2007)

10K 4:11

21.1K 4:17

42.2k 5:11

[bruyere]

Hm. I thought I'd be a lot more out of whack than I am:

5K: unknown
10K: 4:49
1/2: 5:00
full: 5:38

The 10K and half were in the same year (2008). The full was in 2006. And yes, I HAVE done fulls since then, but never fully un-injured.

[Pat Menzies]

I'm roughly on that scale. About 3:20- 5k , 3:30-10k and 3:40 -half.
I start to slip beyond that though.
A more severe scale is for track races where a four second per lap rule is considered optimum for doubling the distance. A 2:00 - 800 would predict a 4:16 mile.
That is much harder.

[MichaelMc]

Like any "rule of thumb" I think it is going to be close for a certain range of runners and lose validity as you move away from that.

I never train for shorter races, rarely race them and the results show. I wouldn't assign any validity to my numbers for that reason.

5k: actual race 20:02, fastest 5k split in marathon 18:xx. 4:01 or 3:43
10k: actual race 42:10 (4:13)
15k: 59:58 (4:00)
10 miles: 1:06:18 (4:07)
21.1 kilometers (2nd half of marathon) 1:28:56 (4:12)
42.2 Km 2:59:10 (4:14)

Have fun with that one!

[Strider]

Like any "rule of thumb" I think it is going to be close for a certain range of runners and lose validity as you move away from that.

I never train for shorter races, rarely race them and the results show. I wouldn't assign any validity to my numbers for that reason.

True, but if the "rule" does hold water then if your were to train for shorter races it would give you and idea of your potential.

[MichaelMc]

Like any "rule of thumb" I think it is going to be close for a certain range of runners and lose validity as you move away from that.

I never train for shorter races, rarely race them and the results show. I wouldn't assign any validity to my numbers for that reason.

True, but if the "rule" does hold water then if your were to train for shorter races it would give you and idea of your potential.

Here is the deal. I have some strengths as a runner and a glaring weakness. I've got good efficiency, a high LT%, and a dandy kick. What I lack is a high VO2 max. I'm solid in the 200m to 800m distance because of my kick. I suck at 3k-10k because VO2 max is very important there, 1/2m - marathon my efficiency and LT% come into play and I do much better. Some arbitrary math formula DOESN'T really tell me that.

[BJH]

I think we touched on it a bit here, too.

A "rule" may give you an idea of near term potential, but you need to do the training that focuses on that distance.

Looking at recent results, I would put my rule closer to 15s/km. I don't have a well paced marathon to compare to. My marathon PB and half marathon PB are a minute per kilometer different in pace. Extrapolating out from my 10k and half marathon times would give me a pretty agressive spring goal.

[Strider]

Some arbitrary math formula DOESN'T really tell me that.

Your right it doesn't - but if your worked on your VO2 do you think it would? Again it is potential not actual...and the thread I meant more of a question than a statement of truth.