I'll give it a go, although I'd be ecstatic with 39:59.
The spare Brooks place has now been sold.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Official Running Thread
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
I'll give it a go, although I'd be ecstatic with 39:59.
The spare Brooks place has now been sold.
Bugger that, much too hard.
Pembury
New member
Not for me. Downland Devil 9 will be my last run out this year.
billpotter72
Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 41
Yep I am entered
I would have loved to, think I probably would have gone under 49 minutes but I will be at Wish Park trying to get some nine year olds to pass a football to each other
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
Hi Knocky: not trying to trump your ace, but I think I did it in around 39:30 in -I think - 1989 (pre-war!). These are both 'I thinks' because I never actually got hold of the results. Younger NSC followers might find it hard to believe that not only was this pre-war but pre-internet and you had to provide an SAE (Stamped Addressed Envelope) to get the results. I didn't get round to this and inevitably it turned out to be my PB (I'm not likely to beat it now!) and yet I've got no record of it. Prat. The other fond memory I have of this one is that my the cord in my shorts broke while I was warming up and I had to run the whole bloody race with one hand hoisting them up. This is a world-record of some sort, surely? If anyone out there has by any chance got the 1989 results, I'd love to hear from them............................
Right, having reviewed all the advice and formulae on here, and the various runners world calculators, I reckon that my target of 47 min for the Brooks is unrealistic, taking account of my only two previous 10k races (last year Brooks at 50:38, and BM10k this year at 48:23), and my current park run times (recent pb of 22:27, but typically averaging around 23:15. I should probably be happy enough if I can come in under 48 min.
Also, I've just belatedly opened my race pack and noticed that they've changed the route from last year at the last minute to run it the other way round (starting in a westerly direction, and also including a section on Hove prom (their website still gives the same route as last year)
Also, I've just belatedly opened my race pack and noticed that they've changed the route from last year at the last minute to run it the other way round (starting in a westerly direction, and also including a section on Hove prom (their website still gives the same route as last year)
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
I recently used the race time predictor on the Runners World site to 'predict' my 10K time from my 5k time. It was within 1 second of accuracy. There's always the possibility that if you do this in advance then it could be to some extent self-fulfilling as the predicted time becomes your target and could even limit you. However, I did mine retrospectively. Spookily accurate (but what was 'interesting' was that I hadn't trained for the 10K specifically).
No another record to you @GNT that @Bignuts will get one day. When I ran that it was my first run with a club in Riyadh. The bloke who pipped me on the line said at least you got under 40. I asked why that was special. In my defence I ran a couple of 17:45 5ks a few months later, one in the second part of a duathlon. Didn't run another 10k for 7 years never knew the time would come in handy on an Internet forum in 20 years time or I would have run one.
Glad that the young and old gazelles of NSC are making me realise I am lagging behind and need to step up a gear.
Glad that the young and old gazelles of NSC are making me realise I am lagging behind and need to step up a gear.
As I had Excel up for work anyway I've just tried a HM estimate based on my Bright10 time. Has me coming in at JUST under 2 hours at race pace. Given I've got effectively 3 months training on top would it seem reasonable to adjust my expected time in my head and on my race registration to around 1.50? That's about what I think I can do.
Yes, it seems to be pretty good (but not within one second in my case) -- I've just compared what it would have predicted for the BM10k last April with what I actually got. The week before the 10k race I got 23:22 in a parkrun (which was my pb at that time), and runners world calculator converts that into 48:43, which is 15 seconds slower than I actually managed to run the 10k in.
Garry Nelson's teacher
Well-known member
So like me you only ever broke the 40 barrier once? But at least you had a witness! I think I did the Crowborough 10K (which is still going strong) later that year and did just over 40. Given that Crowborough is a tougher course, I think that it was probably a slightly better performance than my Brighton one. But this is ancient history. The one I did a couple of weeks ago was a flat-as-a-pancake Worthing one - with no wind for a change - in 43: 26.....so maybe this could be an 'old git' target?
Hang on. I'm off the pace, struggling and happy to talk about running times from the past. The future is different. I have to actually run. Like Dazzer I don't like the distance. On Sunday I will be around 47" as doing it as a punishment run.
Sorry I am out. 43:26 would kill me. Excellent running on your behalf.
I am prepared for a 10k AG meet at the Phoenix 10k next summer. Adrenaline works wonders.
Sorry I am out. 43:26 would kill me. Excellent running on your behalf.
I am prepared for a 10k AG meet at the Phoenix 10k next summer. Adrenaline works wonders.
That reckons I'll get 1hr 53 based on my Phoenix 10k time. Couldn't base it on the 10 miler. Would be pleased but perhaps not delighted with that. It's an initial goal at least. However, based on that time it also predicts a sub 4 hour marathon for me. I would be INSANELY pleased with that. Target for Brighton has always been 4hr 30.
?? Just click 'more distances' and use the '10m' option that pops up ?
FWIW I have never got remotely close the marathon predicted time I should be doing. The longer the distance, the more variables come into it, especially fuelling. I've also come to realise that without specific speed endurance training (which is horrible by the way - done a few sessions recently and it's just hard hard hard) I won't either. Typical SE session is something like 15 miles easy pace, then speed up into 5 miles hard tempo, then do a final mile eyeballs out.
Ouchy. As a first marathon my goal will be "getting round".
Yes I was being a dunce. Just stuck in the Bright10 time and got predicted 1.51 HM which is nearer what I thought. That is an excellent site BTW. I may well stick a 1.45 target time in there and click the coaches advice bit.
Good sensible goal.......far too much to learn to get it right first time (I genuinely haven't got one right yet - out of 40-odd). Pacing and fuelling are the two key elements on the day, and obviously training properly if you can (including not neglecting speedwork)