Prep for 10k run

cayenne · 11-04-2007 5:52pm #1

I'm competing in the 10k run in the park on Sunday and was wondering what is the best breakfast to eat to give me maximum energy etc. Any suggestions other than bananas, as that seems to be the thing everyone suggests

hunnymonster · 11-04-2007 5:56pm

what do you normally eat before running. Race week is not the ideal time to experiment with food that might not agree with you.

Personally I try to have something like porridge or brown bread toast about 3 hours before the race and if I'm going to be runnign for a long time then I have a banana or energy drink about an hour before race start.

Diamondmaker · 11-04-2007 9:29pm

I always have 2 poached eggs, on whole grain toast. Allow plenty of time to digest. 3 hrs as HM suggests is fine for me too.

copacetic · 11-04-2007 9:34pm

wouldn't go near eggs, especially runny ones. Something you are used to that is very unlikely to cause stomach issues like toast, porridge, weetabix, bagel etc.
I usually have a cereal/energy bar the hour before and maybe some energy drink. The big thing is to not try anything new..

Clum · 12-04-2007 11:26am

hunnymonster wrote:

Personally I try to have something like porridge or brown bread toast about 3 hours before the race.

Hunnymonster, you're in to the long distance running in a big way. I been advised against brown bread and wholemeal foods before marathons, etc. Maybe it's a precautionary measure, I dunno. I guessing from your experiences it's not a problem to eat such things before heading off for a 3 or 4 hour run? Any opinions on that?

hunnymonster · 12-04-2007 11:33am

This is going to be a bit crude but if you've already done a big poo you're unlikely to need a second one within a couple of hours. In training, I don't care. I carry tissues with me and most of my routes are rural. I just duck down behind a hedge and fertilise the ground. In town I pop into a pub or petrol station (usually buy a bottle of water or something so as not to abuse the place). On race day I spend a good while on the loo before lining up so as to make sure anything that is close to emptying has plenty of chance todo so. For my first few marathons, I took an anti diorhea (sp?) pill beforehand but I don't bother any more.

Clum · 12-04-2007 12:13pm

hunnymonster wrote:

I just duck down behind a hedge

Good on ya! I'm normally too shy to stop off behind a tree in the middle of nowhere just to take a leak and have often arrived home close to bursting...

Although I've seen the other end of it too with people arriving at the finish line carrying a big mess in their shorts or down their legs....think I'd rather be caught behind a hedge than in that situation...

hunnymonster · 12-04-2007 12:50pm

The bike leg of an ironman is 180 km. Chances are you'll need a pee doing that time. Getting off and back on a bike is a lot more involved than when running so the usual thing is just to pee on the bike. The hot weather and wind means it dries pretty quickly but I get the most disgusted looks from non-triathlete's. You never want to get too close to my bike shoes though

louthandproud · 13-04-2007 1:26pm

hunnymonster wrote:

This is going to be a bit crude but if you've already done a big poo you're unlikely to need a second one within a couple of hours. In training, I don't care. I carry tissues with me and most of my routes are rural. I just duck down behind a hedge and fertilise the ground. In town I pop into a pub or petrol station (usually buy a bottle of water or something so as not to abuse the place). On race day I spend a good while on the loo before lining up so as to make sure anything that is close to emptying has plenty of chance todo so. For my first few marathons, I took an anti diorhea (sp?) pill beforehand but I don't bother any more.

Quoting Jeff Galloway:

"Race Morning- Don't eat, it won't get processed in time to do you any good, Those who need to boost their blood sugar level should eat the same food in the same quantity that they found works for them in other races or hard workouts"
He goes on to say that he does his carb loading the day before the race but doesn't eat too much the night before due to risk of having to carb unload during the race, he also says that he only eats easilly digestable food such as bread and energy bars during this time. For race day he also recommends electrolite fluids, and energy bars 60-90 minutes before the race if you feel that way inclined.

hunnymonster · 13-04-2007 1:58pm

louthandproud wrote:

Quoting Jeff Galloway:

"Race Morning- Don't eat, it won't get processed in time to do you any good, Those who need to boost their blood sugar level should eat the same food in the same quantity that they found works for them in other races or hard workouts"
He goes on to say that he does his carb loading the day before the race but doesn't eat too much the night before due to risk of having to carb unload during the race, he also says that he only eats easilly digestable food such as bread and energy bars during this time. For race day he also recommends electrolite fluids, and energy bars 60-90 minutes before the race if you feel that way inclined.

I don't agree with not eating at all before the race. I have done it once or twice when races started in the middle of the night and I ate well the evening before but for this weekends race you should ahve eaten something rather than coming off a nighttime fast.

I certainly don't think you'll need electrolytes for a 10 km run unless lobal warming has really gone haywire.

An article worth reading is
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/nutrition/sport/carbohydrate.html
but again, for 10 km most people will be fine no matter what they do. I wouldn't get too hung up on it unless you're out to win the race or are a complete couch-potato trying to do it.

louthandproud · 13-04-2007 2:47pm

Hunnymonster, I actually would tend to agree with you. I usually have a fairly light breakfast of tea and toast or something similar 3-4 hours before running. However as you say for a 10K run unless trying to win or something it isn't going to make much difference, but still wouldn't be eating too much or one might end up behind a bush, tissues or no tissues. Also not much point in carrying undigested food around the circuit.

Interesting article by the way.

hunnymonster · 13-04-2007 3:17pm

As a very general rule of thumb (will depend on the person and the food) but an average digestive system can process 250-350 kcal an hour. Any more than this is just extra weight and potential discomfort.

Krusty_Clown · 14-04-2007 3:59pm

Tomorrow, I shall be mostly eating:
8am:
2 x Weetabix
1 x Big slice of brown bread (with butter)
1 x bottle Lucozade sport
Water as needed.

Enjoy the race everyone who's participating!

Sonderval · 15-04-2007 5:22pm

wo0t! 39 minutes! A personal best

How'd everyone get on? Lovely weather for the run. The last hill was murder - didn't see that they had changed the course.

who007 · 15-04-2007 6:52pm

Sonderval wrote:

wo0t! 39 minutes! A personal best

How'd everyone get on? Lovely weather for the run. The last hill was murder - didn't see that they had changed the course.

39 minutes?????
Wooah! Congrats! It was way too hot for me and I wore the cotton t-shirt instead of a technical one so I carried a pint or two of sweat around on me... Can't get used to running hills either and those were not nice. Came in at 58'09, 6 minutes and 7 seconds behind my 10K PB which was 52'02 on the Port Tunnel 10k.
Haven't really trained at all since the Barcelona marathon - did only 2 4 mile runs in last 6 weeks so I'm not surprised at my time today, but it's a good kick up the a*se to get off the couch and get out there again!

anyway - 39 mins is fantastic. Well done!

(oh and the medals were really nice, weren't they?!)

Diamondmaker · 15-04-2007 9:17pm

Great day, smashed my PB of 56 ( Port Tunnel ) by 11 minutes!

I had done a training best of 46 recently on a tread mil so was thrilled to come in at 44.30 today.
I was refused entry to the 40 minute section at the top ( I thought 45 was ok for getting in the top ) and thats now the motivation I will use to aim for 40!
39 is savage!

Odysseus · 15-04-2007 9:37pm

Came in at 42.13 which I was very pleased with, today reminded me of how nice it is to run in the park.

TimG · 15-04-2007 10:06pm

just managed to break into the 37mins, was aiming for 36ish, I didn't expect the 3rd hill, and couldn't keep up my pace for the 8th/9th km, still was a great day. Anyone know when results are up, Hopefully I got into the top 100:) .

ZiggyStardust · 16-04-2007 8:37am

Yep 37 mins was comfortably in the top 100. Well done. The results are up on the greatrun website http://secure.greatrun.org/results/quickresults.php
I finished in 40:01. How unlucky is that.
Oh well, maybe next time.

StaggerLee · 16-04-2007 9:29am

Well done everyone, impressive times there.

I have to hang my head in shame, I went out on Saturday night so didnt make the race on Sunday.... Never again. Roll on the adidas race series.

Diamondmaker · 16-04-2007 2:58pm

TimG wrote:

just managed to break into the 37mins, was aiming for 36ish, I didn't expect the 3rd hill, and couldn't keep up my pace for the 8th/9th km, still was a great day. Anyone know when results are up, Hopefully I got into the top 100:) .

That 3rd hill was a surprise all right, I lost all the time in hand I had and 30secs on it. I was on a pace for ~43 before it.

I had to really bust my ass to get the 44.20 in the end. Last 300m sprint:D
The clock overhead said 44.58 when I finished, this helped me really put the boot in to beat the course clock 45.

More training ....must beat 40 now.

lisnsooz · 16-04-2007 4:15pm

:-) Wow - ye all did great! I only started running a coupla months ago (and when I say 'running' I mean more like jogging/walking intervals) so am still getting the fitness up. But I entered the race yesterday to see what kind of an effort I could make, considering I haven't trained much in the last 3 weeks due to an awful cold.

But I was quite pleased that I got stretches of jogging in with the walking, and did it less than what I estimate 10km would take me to walk, so the jogging must have increased my time (as it should!).

I've had a hunt, but can't find the answer to this. Does anyone know where I could find information on what a reasonably OK time for a newbie to running, would be for 5km/10km/half and full marathon? I'm planning on entering related races over the summer - will be walking and jogging/running as I build up my strength/stamina. But am wondering what sorta decent times I should be aiming for - or is this all relative?

Lockster · 16-04-2007 4:21pm

This was my first organised run as well and although I have been doing a good bit of training, I was aiming for around 1 hour. Anyway I did it in 58mins and 29 secs, which I suppose is a PB. I enjoyed most of it, but have to say that between 7 and 9 km was very hard, I defininately felt like I was going backwards. Anyway I've got the bug now and so looking forward to the next one where I will hope to beat the PB.

hunnymonster · 16-04-2007 5:50pm

lisnsooz wrote:

I've had a hunt, but can't find the answer to this. Does anyone know where I could find information on what a reasonably OK time for a newbie to running, would be for 5km/10km/half and full marathon? I'm planning on entering related races over the summer - will be walking and jogging/running as I build up my strength/stamina. But am wondering what sorta decent times I should be aiming for - or is this all relative?

To a very large extent it is all relative. It will depend on a number of factors such as your gender, your age, whether you're better at longer or shorter distances. As a newbie, just concentrate on enjoying your running. There is plenty of time to consider times down the line.

That said I'm sure you want some numbers. One bench mark is to take the time for an automatic qualification to the flora london marathon (I only chose this because it's on next week, could just have easily chosen Boston or NY or.....) Anyway, for a 18-40 man (18-49 woman) there is a system where you are considered good for age and given an automatic place rather than entering the lottery (only UK residents). There are also several mathematical equations that allow you to convert times at one distance into times at other distances. These are average conversions, if you happen to be a sprinter you're unlike to be able to do a 2.10 marathon and a 2:10 marathoner is not going to do 100m in less than 10 sec.

Plugging the numbers in I got
Men
5 km = 17:35
10 km = 37:19
1/2 marathon = 1:24:00
marathon = 3:00:00

women
5 km = 21:38
10 km = 46.06
1/2 marathon = 1:44:34
marathon 3:45:00

Women do not need 45 min longer than men to do a marathon but this is the benchmark london have chosen. I guess part of it is to increase female participation. For boston a man requires 3:10 and a woman 3:40. NY is faster etc. Personally I tend to compare myself to men faster than me by 20 minutes in a marathon but that's purely my own thinking.

quozl · 16-04-2007 7:53pm

I know they call those 'good' for age, but compared to the average runner they're more than good.

I doubt 10% of the men in the average 10k fun-run break 37:19. lisnsooz, if you're interested, then download last year's results for the races you've entered (or similar events if those aren't online) and see what times you'd need to run to be top 10%, 50% 90%, whatever you consider acceptable.

You won't be last is all I can guarantee

hunnymonster · 16-04-2007 8:04pm

quozl, yeah looking at the men's results I can see what you mean. The women are fine I think?

Diamondmaker · 16-04-2007 8:11pm

hunnymonster wrote:

Plugging the numbers in I got
Men
5 km = 17:35
10 km = 37:19
1/2 marathon = 1:24:00
marathon = 3:00:00

women
5 km = 21:38
10 km = 46.06
1/2 marathon = 1:44:34
marathon 3:45:00

.

These times are nonsense for a newbie!!!
And nowhere near what a newbie shold be aiming for. They are fast. Most of the posts above Im sure are from experienced runners and no one is achieving thise figures.

For Men:

A newbie to a 10k can be happy with an hour, sub 40 is very good and very few in the Bupa did that and 37 is very good.
A sub 20 is also quite an achevement for the average runner and it would be unthinkable for a total newbie ( not already fit from other sports ) to achieve a 17 min time.

try run 1k in 4 mins then you will see how difficult it is to go x 10/5k, too see if you can do a sub 40 or 20.

hunnymonster · 16-04-2007 8:20pm

that's a bit harsh. There is very little information out there saying what would be considered good for a newbie and I just wanted to offer a suggestion.

I've never run a 5 km but my first 10 was sub 45 min, my first half marathon 1:35 and my first marathon 3:40... all well within the female benchmarks and all when I first started running i.e. within 6 months of buying my first pair of trainers. I'm not any kind of exceptional athlete by any means.

I was at pains to point out where I got the figures from and that they were just one way of creating benchmarksso I'm a bit annoyed that you're calling them nonsense.

edit: I do realise the OP wanted a "reasonably ok" suggestion and I've given a "good-for-age" suggestion but I still struggle to see how the values are nonsense.

Diamondmaker · 16-04-2007 8:30pm

hunnymonster wrote:

that's a bit harsh. There is very little information out there saying what would be considered good for a newbie and I just wanted to offer a suggestion.

I've never run a 5 km but my first 10 was sub 45 min, my first half marathon 1:35 and my first marathon 3:40... all well within the female benchmarks and all when I first started running i.e. within 6 months of buying my first pair of trainers. I'm not any kind of exceptional athlete by any means.

I was at pains to point out where I got the figures from and that they were just one way of creating benchmarksso I'm a bit annoyed that you're calling them nonsense.

They are very fast and no normal newbie would expect to do that. The fact that you progressed on to Marathons shows you have a natural fitness and mental toughness that most dont have. This would account for your good times to a degree and most people could never dream of progressing onto reular marathon running- you guys are a tough rare breed!

Also 6 months is a good amount of training too, anyone keen to compete would make huge leaps in 6 months. After 6 months you would not be a "newbie"
To do a 10k in the 1st week of running in an hour is good, 45 for a woman ...excellent.

If you see 37 mins above by Tim G was a top 100, of (say?) 5,000 that will put your times into perspective.

Top 100 of 5000 is the top 2% of people who race. What newbie can asspire to be in the top 2% as a starter???

And Lockser, above also, 1st race, bit of training 58....

The best guide here are peoples posted times and their relevant comnets.

Oh yeah and my GF did her 1st ever race with almost no pre training in 1.20, tell her she should have been aiming at 46!

hunnymonster · 16-04-2007 8:46pm

I think maybe we're just considering very different definitions of newbie. I would consider someone with less than a year's experience running a newbie. I know it certainly took me at least that long to understand how my body worked and what it responded to. You're definition appears to be more of complete beginner with no training done. Could this be where our differing opinions originate?

DaveH · 16-04-2007 9:19pm

its all relevant to fitness base for newbies.
Arthur Lyarid the ZEN of athletic coaches, said it took 3 years for endurance athletes to build their fitness base. Some athlete's have migrated from other sports with a decent base, hence they run 5K in sub 18 and 10K sub 40. Other newbies could be weighing well over 12st and be looking to break 50 mins for 10K
As for the times honeymoster posted....Can you tell me where you got these times from?
a sub 3 hour marathon is very good, no if's or buts.
good club athletes are;
Sub 5 Mins for 1500m
Sub 18 for 5K
sub 40 for 10k
Sub 1 hour for 10 miles.

I dont know any newbie who took just took up the sport who has ran those times.

Diamondmaker · 16-04-2007 10:30pm

lisnsooz wrote:

:-) Wow - ye all did great! I only started running a coupla months ago (and when I say 'running' I mean more like jogging/walking intervals) so am still getting the fitness up. But I entered the race yesterday to see what kind of an effort I could make, considering I haven't trained much in the last 3 weeks due to an awful cold.

But I was quite pleased that I got stretches of jogging in with the walking, and did it less than what I estimate 10km would take me to walk, so the jogging must have increased my time (as it should!).

I've had a hunt, but can't find the answer to this. Does anyone know where I could find information on what a reasonably OK time for a newbie to running, would be for 5km/10km/half and full marathon? I'm planning on entering related races over the summer - will be walking and jogging/running as I build up my strength/stamina. But am wondering what sorta decent times I should be aiming for - or is this all relative?

My definition is based on someone as the OP above describes. A year is loads of training and many avaerage people could achieve great things in a years good training. I agree that is where we differ so....:)

hunnymonster · 17-04-2007 6:52am

DaveH wrote:

As for the times honeymoster posted....Can you tell me where you got these times from?

sorry I explained as clearly as I could. I chose the flore london marathon good-for-age qualificatin times as the benchmark for the marathon distance and then used an average of the predicted times using mcmillan/RW/Grubb for the other distances the OP asked about.

I think based on the consencus here I'm going to have to change my thinking on what a newbie is. MOst people are thinking of it as someone completely new to running with no training unlike the idea I had in my head of someone with less than a year's running. I've been running since August 2004. I've won marathons and done other silly things like ironman but if I'm honest 2 weeks ago in the Connemara ultra marathon is the first time I felt like a proper runner not a newbie. A certain amount is perception.

That aside. I stilll think my times are reasonable for anyone to achieve within a few months if not a year so long as they work hard at it. It takes good genetics to run a 2:10 marathon. It takes hard work to run a 3:00 marathon.

lisnsooz · 17-04-2007 11:34am

hunnymonster wrote:

One bench mark is to take the time for an automatic qualification to the flora london marathon

quozl wrote:

download last year's results for the races you've entered (or similar events if those aren't online) and see what times you'd need to run to be top 10%, 50% 90%, whatever you consider acceptable.

Diamondmaker wrote:

Oh yeah and my GF did her 1st ever race with almost no pre training in 1.20, tell her she should have been aiming at 46!

Thanks for the info, everyone

I'm a female newbie, in that this is the year I tackle the fitness, and prior to 2007 the most exercise I got was walking around the shops at the weekend and so far this year I've been mostly walking to/from work and a bit of cycling. As you mentioned hunnymonster - enjoying the running should be the plan at the moment (as how will I stick with it if I'm not getting some level of enjoyment/satisfaction out of it?!).

But having some sort of ballpark is great too - from the satisfaction and competitiveness side of things. As I said, if I know I'm faster than simply walking - that's something to aim for starting off this Spring, but if I know I'm coming somewhere in the middle of the posse - that's a bonus! And doing some investigating on the Bupa site, I think I came in just shy of the last third of competitors - which for a newbie novice practiced-running-after-buses person, I'm happy with

At least I can hope to not be spending 6 hours slogging around a 26-odd mile course if the fitness improves - I'd have to start investing in audio books to keep myself entertained!!! :eek:

Clum · 17-04-2007 1:58pm

Ireland's top class club runners finish 10Ks from around (often times under) 30 mins to 35 mins. I wouldn't expect part-time athletes, or fun runners, to get anywhere near those kind of times. Even sub 40 is very very good.

The cut-off time for the Bupa 'fittest county in Ireland' Ronnie Delaney trophy was 45.00 minutes. Anybody who competes in races such as the Bupa 10 but doesn't represent a club would be doing very good to finish inside that time.

That type of target is something a 'newbie' who wants to do well after some training would be, I think, a high standard to reach. More than reasonable, as was asked for by lisnsooz.

louthandproud · 19-04-2007 9:17pm

There was a section at the front(BUPA 10K) just behind the 10 or so elite athletes for experienced club runners, the entry requirement was to be a sub 40 minute runner over 10K.

So under anyones definition this is an unrealistic target for a newbie. Only a small proportion of runners, newbie or otherwise will ever run under 40 Minutes for a 10K.

50 Minutes would be a more realistic general target for someone new to running with a couple of months preperation, unless they had a very good base line fitness from another sport already. Although of course there are exceptions to every rule and generalisation.

aoa321 · 21-04-2007 11:34pm

Hi all,

Well done to the experienced athletes on your fantastic times, and congratulations to the newbies on completing your races.

I was running just inside 45 minutes for 10K last year and just over 21 minutes for 5K. In the last couple of weeks I scraped inside 20 minutes for 5K for the first time. All my training times are a good bit faster than last year and I have a 10K race next weekend that I will hopefully compete in, I'm hoping to do about 42 minutes.

For all the athletes in this thread who are running around or just under 40 minutes (my dream) - how many kilomteres per week are you all running? Do you go on really long runs or keep to the distances you will be competing over? Do you do any other sort of training such as weights?

Last year I nearly slogged myself to death, most of my training runs were over an hour and a half, this year I have dropped the distances dramatically, usually about 10K runs and I mostly get out about 4 times a week. I do the runs now with more intensity (faster) and I have been more consistent over a longer period, it's more structured, it feels easier and my times do seem to be coming down, next week will be the test.

At the moment I'm losing some enthusiasm, I've been on the go since Christmas so after my 10K next week I will be sitting back and having a think about what to do next. I'd be interested to hear a little about all your training schedules and how you achieve such great times.

aoa321 · 21-04-2007 11:34pm

ZiggyStardust · 22-04-2007 11:48am

Hi aoa,
I'm no expert, but I don't think it is the amount of km's people run in a week. I think you should start doing some speed work once or even twice a week. Add this to one tempo run and a longish run on a Sunday. Since I added speed work to my training again, i dropped 5km and 10km times dramatically.
Best of luck....

hunnymonster · 22-04-2007 12:43pm

one session that is useful to include is
5 min warm up
a:10 mins fast
b:5 mins slow jog (make sure HR comes back down < 65%)
repeat a & b a further two times.
5 min cool down and lots of stretches.
It sounds ok but it is a very hard session. Don't do it more than once a week. You may not be able to hold the full 10 mins t first.

Other useful things are hill reps, just find a hill and run up it, walk down it and repeat 6-8 times.

Also maybe try some running drills

Fartlek is fun, It means speed play and essentially mean when you're out running, every so often pick up the pace. For example, pick a tree 150 m in the distance and pick up the pace until you reach it.

TimG · 23-04-2007 2:11pm

Hi aoa.
At the moment I only doing about 3 or 4 40min runs a week (15mile/25km a wk), and i feel that that isn't really enough, but its keeping me active. When i finish college (in 2 months), I'll be back up to about 40miles a wk, and i expect that knock a min or so off my 10k time.

One thing that I do, and i don't know if its good or bad, is lots of races. I do a proper race on average every 10days, mainly 3 to 5k with my local club (fit4life races), and when the mountain running kicks off, it will be a race every wk. I find that this keeps me race prepared for the bigger races. i basically treat these race as my fartlet or tempo runs.

jazzieb · 25-04-2007 12:29pm

Sorry back to the newbie person times .. I was a total newbie - mid 30s, female, for my first mini-marathon .. I did a ten week training course off coolrunning.com and the mini-marathon was my first 10k and I did it in 59:56 .. I've been running a few years now on and off and my PB is 55mins ..

I do agree with whoever said it's about your fitness base and it's also about your motivation .. I do it for general fitness and the pleasure of running outside and clearing my head .. I've no plans to do any greater distance than 10k and while it's a challenge to do races and motivates me to keep improving my time, I'm not aiming to be a sub-45 10k-er ..

Jazzie

girvtheswerve · 26-04-2007 7:09pm

hey, ran the bupa run. it was my first so i was real nervous. good experience i have to say. hills were very tough and the heat didnt help but i did enjoy it. did it in 58 minutes which i was happy with really cause i only started runnin two months before. think ive got the bug now though. lookin forward to my next race!!

Prep for 10k run

Comments