Is 35 minutes the new 30 minutes ?

TheRoadRunner

Something I've been thinking about a while. I talked to a couple of workmates and friends today who ran the 5 mile race on Saturday. It may be a coincidence but the majority were targeting 35 minutes which is obviously good running.

It just got me thinking though. About 10 years ago when I ran my first 5 mile road race I was targeting 30 minutes. I ran it with my cousins boxing club and the majority of those guys were also trying to run under 30 minutes. They were not runners and obviously not everybody met their target but the majority got close.

Similarly 60 minutes would have been the target for a 10 mile race. Maybe I hung around with guys who aimed to run faster than most but it just got me wondering is 35 minutes the new 30 minutes for 5 miles ?

I'm robbing some stats from Stupid_Private here. The breakdown of finishers on Saturday was as follows. I think these are indicative of most 5 mile races around the country. Very few people broke the 30 minute barrier.
24-30 minutes - 81 finishers
30-35 minutes - 303 finishers
35-40 minutes - 740 finishers

What I'm trying to say is once a runner reaches a certain level of fitness is 35 minutes their gold standard ? Maybe this would be better done as a poll ! So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier. I know it's not an easy thing to do and ability does play a factor but just a thought (a long winded one at that)

GoHardOrGoHome

I have a theory on why people aren't targetting those times in general. I reckon in the last decade or two there has been a shift from people training exclusively for road races to doing road races in addition to other activities such as mountain running, mountain biking, triathlon, kayaking, canoepolo, ultra running, surfing, wind-surfing etc.

There's simply more options for people!

By the way my eventual goal would be to go sub 3 for the marathon. According to McMillan I'd need a 30:36 5 mile. If I managed to hit 30:36 I think I'd aim for sub 30. That's a 2011 goal!

A 60 minute 10 miler is a completely different kettle of fish to the 30 minute 5 miler though.

Although McMillan says a 29:59 5 miler is equivalent to a 62:58 10 miler and a 59:59 10 miler is equivalent to a 28:34 5 miler.

Krusty_Clown

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier.

Not a chance. I'm only running regularly about 14-16 months, and have a 32.x, but sub 30 is definitely a goal, but will likely not be until next year.

Running has entered the mainstream. In the past, there would have been more converts to running (from other sports), or people who ran in their youth, only to return to it at a later stage. Now, running is for everyone, and most taking up the sport these days have never run before in their lives, apart from running a few laps of a pitch on sports day.

GoHardOrGoHome

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Running has entered the mainstream. In the past, there would have been more converts to running (from other sports), or people who ran in their youth, only to return to it at a later stage. Now, running is for everyone, and most taking up the sport these days have never run before in their lives, apart from running a few laps of a pitch on sports day.

That would explain why as a percentage of the total number of runners there were less hitting sub 30 for the 5 mile and sub 60 for the 10 mile. However, I've read in several articles that the actual number of runners doing those times have declined. Think there was an article in the last Irish Runner mentioning the Ballycotton 10 and how less people were going sub 60 than 10 years ago. Somebody else might be able to correct me?!

Krusty_Clown

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

However, I've read in several articles that the actual number of runners doing those times have declined.

Ah well, that's because the pedigree runners no longer enter mainstream events, now that they're full of plodders. They've all gone to the track now, or are doing running scholarships in the US.

hawkwing

"So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier"
Only started in the last 2 yrs --goal was 40,now 37 but 35 next yr and 30 hopefully in another 2yrs being optimistic

eliwallach

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier.

I took up running in Feb '08.
I've only raced the 5 mile distance twice.
Dec '08 34:35
Feb '09 35:20

Yes my ambition would be to run a sub 30min 5 mile. But I'll have to run sub 34, sub 33 etc before that.
So it could be a while yet.
If I were to run a 5 mile race today, I would be aiming to do it in 33min.

dna_leri

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is once a runner reaches a certain level of fitness is 35 minutes their gold standard ? Maybe this would be better done as a poll ! So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier. I know it's not an easy thing to do and ability does play a factor but just a thought (a long winded one at that)

I ran my first 5 mile (8K) last year and hit my target of 35mins despite a crowded start (Streets of Galway). My stretch goal for this year was 30mins but I probably won't get there as I have not done the work for this distance.

I think as KC says, a higher % of those starting running now are coming to it new and are happy to finish the distance rather than achieve a goal time. I think from there, beginners are more likely to go on and increase their race distance (10 mile, half marathon, marathon) rather than increase their speed. Those of us coming back to running, even after a long break are more likely to set time goals to achieve at shorter distances first and maybe that's the ability factor - if you ran as a juvenile you are more likely to have had natural ability that you can build on.

Lots of exceptions to my broad strokes, but that's my theory.

tisnotover

took up running about 2 years ago, started off at 35mins at five miles+gradually inched further under it, till I reached a plateau of about 33mins.

With structured training have gotten to under 31:xx mins lately, but see sub-30 (which is my aim) a bit off at moment.

Will have to break sub 19 for 5k first anyhow, then target sub-24 for 4 miles. ONLY THEN, would I think about sub-30 for 5miles. Think bit-wise targets like that are a good idea?

Nice topic for a thread

robinph

I've only been back running again or a couple of years now, but i've managed to get my last couple of 5mile times down to just under 31'. I'd hope to be getting closer to under 30' in the next year.

MCOS

I started running 2 years ago , obviously sidetracked with the ole swimming and cycling right now however yep sub 30 very doable IMO with some focus. I think training for my first marathon, doing about 20 miles a week I would have been close to 35 mins on training runs. Last year I did 2 marathons and no specific speedwork and did 32 mins with a hangover on new years day this year. I think the difference was just more miles in the legs and just being generally fitter.

Now its not a walk in the park as the progress gets tighter as you get fitter. A friend of mine did 31 odd at last years 5 mile and dropped that to 30 this year. Now she has also done a 2'53 marathon and a 37' 10k in between so is a very nice runner. This is why I say sub 30 is doable but needs focus.

rdunne

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Something I've been thinking about a while. I talked to a couple of workmates and friends today who ran the 5 mile race on Saturday. It may be a coincidence but the majority were targeting 35 minutes which is obviously good running.

It just got me thinking though. About 10 years ago when I ran my first 5 mile road race I was targeting 30 minutes. I ran it with my cousins boxing club and the majority of those guys were also trying to run under 30 minutes. They were not runners and obviously not everybody met their target but the majority got close.

Similarly 60 minutes would have been the target for a 10 mile race. Maybe I hung around with guys who aimed to run faster than most but it just got me wondering is 35 minutes the new 30 minutes for 5 miles ?

I'm robbing some stats from Stupid_Private here. The breakdown of finishers on Saturday was as follows. I think these are indicative of most 5 mile races around the country. Very few people broke the 30 minute barrier.
24-30 minutes - 81 finishers
30-35 minutes - 303 finishers
35-40 minutes - 740 finishers

What I'm trying to say is once a runner reaches a certain level of fitness is 35 minutes their gold standard ? Maybe this would be better done as a poll ! So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier. I know it's not an easy thing to do and ability does play a factor but just a thought (a long winded one at that)

My dad ran back in the 80's and all his mates did 30 mins 5 miles and looked for 60 mins for the 10 mile. I think now people dont train as hard and the ave time is droping like a stone. As the sub 20 mins 4 milers become 22 mins so sub 24 mins become 25 . I remmeber my dad and one of his mates doing 22 mins for 4 miles and it was no big thing. I dont see me ever getting down to that time. They also did very little tempo running etc. Lots of miles all the same!!

thirtyfoot

I thought this was a reference to Ciara Mageean for a minute and the fact that her longest run is 35 mins, 3 times a week:)

jeffontour

GoHardOrGoHome wrote: »

There's simply more options for people!

I think this has something to do with it ok. Every few years there seems to be a new "cool" thing to do. Be it tag rugby, boot camp style fitness groups or everyone wanting to be a triathlete(I think I will end up having a go soon myself so I'm guillty of that one). This makes peoples efforts more diluted and focus is needed to get better/quicker in any sporting activity.

Also running is generally enjoying a boom in popularity so combined with the fact cash is tight for a lot of people running will probably appeal to even more as an inexpensive alternative to gyms etc.

When you compare the population now to that in the 80s running boom I think we're now more likely to be carrying some more winter insulation and doing a little less walking and more sitting behind desks. So it doesn't surprise me that the average runner is now that bit slower, but that can of worms has been well and truely opened previously!

Not particularly scientific but that's how I see the world!

Sosa

I am not even 2 years running yet and when i started i could not even do 2m without it killing me.,but within 4 months i ran a 33:45 five miler,that steadinly dropped until recently when i did 29:33 and 29:39 in 2 consecutive 5 milers.

For me,running was something i took up after i fnished the team sports that i played all my life,felt i was still fit enough to play but got fed up of travelling and all the set times of training during the week and giving up w/e's playing matches...with running you can go whenever it suits you.
Your priorities change...children,married,mortgage,bills...etc

eliwallach

Sosa wrote: »

.For me,running was something i took up after i fnished the team sports that i played all my life,felt i was still fit enough to play but got fed up of travelling and all the set times of training during the week and giving up w/e's playing matches...with running you can go whenever it suits you.
Your priorities change...children,married,mortgage,bills...etc

I think this will strike a chord with the majority of people here .
Fantastic times BTW Sosa.

aero2k

I thik there's a general decrease in the numbers who are willing and able to put in the necessary training. This applies to all distances - when I ran my first marathon in '83 I think around 900 of the 10,000 went under 3 hours, as against only around 250 in last year's race which had a similar size field. I'm not sure if it's connected to a more sedentary lifestyle among the younger generation with playstations etc. When I signed up in '83 it wasn't just about the distance, I wanted a good time as well. Now it seems to be just "I did a marathon" regardless of time.
Regarding your original question, a sub 30 5 mile is definitely a long-term target, but first there's the little matter of the '09 DCM....

Running Bing

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier. I know it's not an easy thing to do and ability does play a factor but just a thought (a long winded one at that)

Running since June 08 and no way would I be satisfied with a 35 min 5 mile. For me, a runner in my early 20's, a 35 minute 5 mile is a good standard of fitness and a nice achievement but its nothing out of this world (equivalent of a 21 minute 5k). I also dont think ability plays a factor for a 30 minute 5 mile, I think any male under 35 with no serious medical conditions would be able to do it as long as they were willing to put in the work.

I was just reading that article in Irish runner about the Ballycotton 10 the other day actually, the numbers achieving sub 60 then vs now was quite shocking.


I think its a number of things. I think attitude and culture has changed in Ireland and we are now very career focused. A lot of people just wont devote the time to running when they are working 10 hours a day and have an hour+ commute after work. In the 80's it was a case of "Im a runner who works as an engineer", now its a case of "Im an engineer who does a bit of running".

However I do think for many people now its more about participating than really going for it and I dont think thats a good thing. I was only a kid back in the 80's but it also seems people were much more optimistic (or realistic) about their ability back then. It seems everybody felt they could run a sub 3 marathon or a sub 60 10 miler, were as now you often here "oh I could never run a sub 3 marathon".

TheRoadRunner

Running Bing wrote: »

I think attitude and culture has changed in Ireland and we are now very career focused. A lot of people just wont devote the time to running when they are working 10 hours a day and have an hour+ commute after work.

True but this recession could yet have a silver lining, we will all be back to 1980s running pace I'm going to start tracking race results from around the country to see if I can see a significant improvement in performance. One thing is for sure I see more and more people out running all times of the day so obviously training is filling a hole for some.

Running Bing

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

True but this recession could yet have a silver lining, we will all be back to 1980s running pace I'm going to start tracking race results from around the country to see if I can see a significant improvement in performance. One thing is for sure I see more and more people out running all times of the day so obviously training is filling a hole for some.

Ha, I was thinking this myself. More people have more time to train now than at any point in the last two decades so it would definitely be interesting to see if it translates into faster races.

chinguetti

Running for 18 months and 5 mile is down to 32.12 from just finishing it when i started. After getting a marathon out of the way, i'm now after a 30 mins goal for 5 mile, 1 hr 10 for a 10 mile and 1 hr 30 for a half and then return for the marathon. It will take me a bit of time but by doing 5 kms, i might build up the speed for the 5 miles. Did Adamstown 8 k in 33 mins without any real struggle so that gives me some hope. I'm designed for distance not speed though:D

As others have said, alot of people are aiming to finish 5 miles as its a landmark for people when they start running. Look at last Saturday. From memory 2,800 finished the 5 miler in 2008, 4,500 finished it this year. My figures might be wrong but if they are close, thats a huge leap hence the average times will come down. This will distort the figures and also the sheer number of people will make it difficult for people to bring down their imes at something like the 5 miler.

shels4ever

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Something I've been thinking about a while. I talked to a couple of workmates and friends today who ran the 5 mile race on Saturday. It may be a coincidence but the majority were targeting 35 minutes which is obviously good running.

It just got me thinking though. About 10 years ago when I ran my first 5 mile road race I was targeting 30 minutes. I ran it with my cousins boxing club and the majority of those guys were also trying to run under 30 minutes. They were not runners and obviously not everybody met their target but the majority got close.

Similarly 60 minutes would have been the target for a 10 mile race. Maybe I hung around with guys who aimed to run faster than most but it just got me wondering is 35 minutes the new 30 minutes for 5 miles ?

I'm robbing some stats from Stupid_Private here. The breakdown of finishers on Saturday was as follows. I think these are indicative of most 5 mile races around the country. Very few people broke the 30 minute barrier.
24-30 minutes - 81 finishers
30-35 minutes - 303 finishers
35-40 minutes - 740 finishers

What I'm trying to say is once a runner reaches a certain level of fitness is 35 minutes their gold standard ? Maybe this would be better done as a poll ! So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier. I know it's not an easy thing to do and ability does play a factor but just a thought (a long winded one at that)

It will always be sub 30 for me... there is something about 6 min miles that just do it for me... But then again it's dating back to ten years ago that it stuck in my mind.

Woddle

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier.

I'm back running 17 months now and have a pb of 33'07 from Jan but when I first started back, sub 35 was def the goal, the next step would be sub 30 and I reckon it's more than doable for most with more structured training.Out of the 4,500 runners from Saturdays race, how many are attached to a club where they can be offered direction, I suppose it's a big plus for joining a club rather than making it up yourself as you go along.

christeb

Pb same as Woddle's (I think ~33:09) and I've been running properly for about 12 months. A girl who I've been recently beating over 2m / 5k beat me by 1:45 on Sat ( I ran 33:50), but as per my log I didn't give it 100% due to the crowds etc. My point being I feel as though I'm in sub 32 shape currently. In saying that - 30 is 100% the target for me, it'll be a tough one to crack though!

messed_up

Like a few others here, I really only took up running after I finished with team sports. My first ventures into organaised racing were the adidas 10 and half marathons. For me getting a sub-30 5-miler is about adding speed to my existing endurance which may be the opposite strategy for many runners out there. I definitely want to hit sub-30, though as I am also doing triathlons it is hard to balance the needs of the three sports and accommodate sufficient speed sessions into my schedule. I hope to give it a proper go early next year - did saturdays in 32:30 so I thinks its within shot.

Just as a thought, I imagine that runners in the 80's trained with speed per mile in mind, whereas a lot of people now use HRMs or GPS trainers as a guide to their training efforts which would make 6 minute miles appear suicidal on their monitors.

jinka

jeffontour wrote: »

I think this has something to do with it ok. Every few years there seems to be a new "cool" thing to do. Be it tag rugby, boot camp style fitness groups or everyone wanting to be a triathlete(I think I will end up having a go soon myself so I'm guillty of that one). This makes peoples efforts more diluted and focus is needed to get better/quicker in any sporting activity.

Also running is generally enjoying a boom in popularity so combined with the fact cash is tight for a lot of people running will probably appeal to even more as an inexpensive alternative to gyms etc.

When you compare the population now to that in the 80s running boom I think we're now more likely to be carrying some more winter insulation and doing a little less walking and more sitting behind desks. So it doesn't surprise me that the average runner is now that bit slower, but that can of worms has been well and truely opened previously!

Not particularly scientific but that's how I see the world!

Well anybody playing "tag" rugby is a complete wimp or nerd and should keep away from running. Muppet sport!

MCOS

jinka wrote: »

Well anybody playing "tag" rugby is a complete wimp or nerd and should keep away from running. Muppet sport!

**challenges jinka to an arm wrestle or anything else manly immediately**;)

Running Bing

jinka wrote: »

Well anybody playing "tag" rugby is a complete wimp or nerd and should keep away from running. Muppet sport!

Could'nt agree more. Seems such a makey-up sport that office people use as an excuse for post "match" drinks:D

Gringo78

I was warming up behind some other runners at the Mallow 10 back in January and I heard one runner remark that a few weeks before that he had run sub 30 for 5 miles for the first time and was delighted as it was a landmark.....he went into work on the Monday morning and a work colleague asked him what he had done for the weekend...he said he had run a 5 mile race....'What'd it take you', asked his overweight colleague who had never run in his life....'around 30min i suppose?' That knocked the wind out of his sails he said.

So while the 35min might be the new standard for runners, for the layman couch potato, they are still keeping their standards high and 30min is still ordinary like in the '80s and 25min will probably merit a pat on the back.

For me, sub 30 is the next goal, then sub 29, then Sub 28. I think everyone with work should be able to run Sub 30 but it takes time and the older you are, the more time it takes. I've been knocking a min off my time each 5 mile race I enter going Sub 36, Sub 35, Sub 34, Sub 33, Sub 32 over the last 12 months. Hopefully Sub 31 this week and hopefully Sub 30 in a few weeks time. I think though it'll progress from there on much slower.

jeffontour

Running Bing wrote: »

Could'nt agree more. Seems such a makey-up sport that office people use as an excuse for post "match" drinks:D

Aye, it's a bit makey-up but it has it's moments, if not sporting then in bringing together guys and girls

All this talk of 5 mile PBs makes me think I've got to actually train for and race one some time soon.

jinka

Running Bing wrote: »

Could'nt agree more. Seems such a makey-up sport that office people use as an excuse for post "match" drinks:D

Haha

My boss plays it and is a total wimp ! the more southside you go the more they play it..
Ever run around Bushy park? The women only play it to meet the men. Funny thing is the men are more like women!!

TheRoadRunner

jinka wrote: »

Haha

My boss plays it and is a total wimp ! the more southside you go the more they play it..
Ever run around Bushy park? The women only play it to meet the men. Funny thing is the men are more like women!!

The amount of injuries associated with tag rugby is amazing. I suppose unfit boys and girls sprinting around rupture the odd tendon here and there .

Girls I work with play it and they hammered the local mens GAA team recently. I found that very funny. The fact the lads were playing was gas. The fact they were beaten was priceless

louthandproud

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Something I've been thinking about a while. I talked to a couple of workmates and friends today who ran the 5 mile race on Saturday. It may be a coincidence but the majority were targeting 35 minutes which is obviously good running.

It just got me thinking though. About 10 years ago when I ran my first 5 mile road race I was targeting 30 minutes. I ran it with my cousins boxing club and the majority of those guys were also trying to run under 30 minutes. They were not runners and obviously not everybody met their target but the majority got close.

Similarly 60 minutes would have been the target for a 10 mile race. Maybe I hung around with guys who aimed to run faster than most but it just got me wondering is 35 minutes the new 30 minutes for 5 miles ?

I'm robbing some stats from Stupid_Private here. The breakdown of finishers on Saturday was as follows. I think these are indicative of most 5 mile races around the country. Very few people broke the 30 minute barrier.
24-30 minutes - 81 finishers
30-35 minutes - 303 finishers
35-40 minutes - 740 finishers

What I'm trying to say is once a runner reaches a certain level of fitness is 35 minutes their gold standard ? Maybe this would be better done as a poll ! So for anybody who has taken up running in the last 2 years would you be satisfied with 35 minutes for 5 miles or would you not rest until you broke the 30 minute barrier. I know it's not an easy thing to do and ability does play a factor but just a thought (a long winded one at that)

The 10 years in between might have a bit to do with it too, a lot of people are taking up running now from their mid thirties onwards as their main sport, myself included.
Even though I was a running in my early 20's I now have a new set of PB targets. Not all time ones, but targets for where I am in my life now, all relative. I wasn't a runner per say in my early 20's but I played senior club rugby, had played minor inter-county hurling and could run 5 miles in under 30 no problem, now 35 is my target and running is my only sport really.

thirstywork

I think its all relative to the persons background.Like if they played soccer or where a cyclist for years and have a descent level of finess then 30mins will come fairly easy for some people.
What would people on here class as the gold standard marathon????
I would say 3 hours is gold standard for the general runner but for most club runners it would be sub 2.40

Anyway back to the 5mile i think the same think has happened to the standards in general.
Most 5mile races 10-15 years ago would be won in close to 23mins and a sub 25 might sneak you into the to 8-10

Condo131

thirstywork wrote: »

Anyway back to the 5mile i think the same think has happened to the standards in general.
Most 5mile races 10-15 years ago would be won in close to 23mins and a sub 25 might sneak you into the to 8-10

I tend to agree, with a proviso....10 -15 years ago, very many races weren't very well measured (4 wheels etc), so some times can be taken with a grain of salt, nevertheless they weren't out by huge amounts.

Been running for over 25 years and I reckon that the current crop of younger runners - those that might aspire to PB's and break 30 for the 5 (personally haven't had a PB (whatever that might be! ) since 1994) - in general, aren't putting in the work. Ask most people what they're doing; something like this: "Huge mileage! About 40 a week!"

In the 80's and early 90's, most of us were doing at least 60+ and upping that to 100+/- for the marathon. OK people are following different training regimes now, but it worked for us. Numbers participating are way up but numbers achieving particularly good times are way down.

Very few seem to do speedwork either:rolleyes: That's a no brainer!

wrt standards, take the Shanagarry 5 in Cork, one of the Ballycotton Summer Series:

Year Participants Sub 25 Sub 27 Sub 30
1978 ---- 28

---

3

---

9 ---- 20
1979 ---- 23

---

2 ---- 11 ---- 18
2004 --- 186

---

0

---

7 ---- 21
2007 --- 278

---

0

---

4 ---- 26
2008 --- 280

---

0

---

2 ---- 19
2009 --- 471

---

0

---

3 ---- 31

For Cork, and some Munster, races, you can check many of your times (and your mates - see who's spoofin'!) in this searchable database on the Eagle AC website.

btw [brag, brag] ...5 mile PB = 27:32 :D ...years ago:(:(

and, in spite of lamenting both personal standards and those in general, well done to anyone actually getting out and doing something, no matter how fast (or slow). Your health is your wealth - use it or lose it!!

Carb

As someone who has just started running, although my ambitions lie more towards triathlon/ironman, my aim in relation to my running would be to run a sub 3hr marathon. However, in order to do this, I'd guess that you would have to be very capable of sub 30 5 miles and sub 60 10 miles. The question I'll be asking next year is how best to go about this.

shels4ever

Woddle wrote: »

I'm back running 17 months now and have a pb of 33'07 from Jan but when I first started back, sub 35 was def the goal, the next step would be sub 30 and I reckon it's more than doable for most with more structured training.Out of the 4,500 runners from Saturdays race, how many are attached to a club where they can be offered direction, I suppose it's a big plus for joining a club rather than making it up yourself as you go along.

Think i was nearly in the exact smae boat as your, started 18 months ago with a super 49:30 5 mile time :eek: . That day i decided that I was going to run sub 30... seemed like a bit of a dream then but starting to believe now....

I was the typical "celtic tiger"..... Obese , beer drinking , pizza eating hard working...

rdunne

shels4ever wrote: »

I was the typical "celtic tiger"..... pizza eating ...

hay dont knock pizza eating its the main reason I run!!!

jlang

30 minutes is my new 35 minutes or it will be once I fail to get it a few times I ran three 5 milers in 2008 and was 35-and-a-bit for each so my first time target this year was to break 35 in Raheny. Current PB is 31'59 so I think 30 minutes should be achievable, medium-term.

theFinishLine

I think I agree with some of the posts above - there are so many events that people can focus on - running is no longer the only mass participation event. I could not have imagined 10 years ago that I could have taken part in a triathlon for example.

My opinion on it is that everyone has different goals - if 35 mins is the new 30 minutes so be it. Running, I think, will always have a certain group of "must do" for runners which I think will stay consistent.

Sub 17:00 for 5KM
Sub 30:00 for 5miles
Sub 36:00 for 10KM
Sub 60:00 for 10miles
Sub 88:00 for 1/2 marathon
Sub 3 hours for marathon.

I think a very good article related to the subject of this thread is the following
[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] How Oprah ruined the marathon

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] America's competitive spirit has been wrecked by feel-good amateurs like Oprah whose only goal is to stagger across the finish line. [/FONT]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/11/03/marathon/print.html

Running Bing

theFinishLine wrote: »

I think a very good article related to the subject of this thread is the following
[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif] How Oprah ruined the marathon

[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] America's competitive spirit has been wrecked by feel-good amateurs like Oprah whose only goal is to stagger across the finish line. [/FONT]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/11/03/marathon/print.html

Yeah he raise some good points there...back in the 80's the role model was Frank Shorter or John Treacey, today its Oprah or Ronan Keating:eek:

Much more about participation now. I dont think thats necessarily a good thing either because I think a lot of people sell themselves short, they use a lack of talent as an excuse and hence we get a drop off in standards at races.

shels4ever

Running Bing wrote: »

Yeah he raise some good points there...back in the 80's the role model was Frank Shorter or John Treacey, today its Oprah or Ronan Keating:eek:

Much more about participation now. I dont think thats necessarily a good thing either because I think a lot of people sell themselves short, they use a lack of talent as an excuse and hence we get a drop off in standards at races.

True.
I think TheRoadRunner made some good points, in the early 90's i ran lots of road races, where you have footballers boxers all running and running close if not sub 30's . So I don't know if the "people are taking part in other sports" is a reason not to run a lot faster then 35 mins.

If a footballer is fit and does train hard he should be capable of close to 30 mins, So i don't buy into it. i think we have become fat and lazy as a nation and the average person now is a lot less fit then the average person in the 80's. We still have our top talents but as a nation but on the whole were no way as fit as we once were.

RoyMcC

Running Bing wrote: »

Much more about participation now. I dont think thats necessarily a good thing either because I think a lot of people sell themselves short, they use a lack of talent as an excuse and hence we get a drop off in standards at races.

Can't agree with you RB. The fact is that no matter how hard many of today's runners train they ain't going to be pushing for the win. Therefore they back off, train less intensley, and take pleasure both in participation with others and achieving personal goals. That's no bad thing.

You can't blame the masses for the fall off in standards at the sharp end.

RoyMcC

shels4ever wrote: »

i think we have become fat and lazy as a nation and the average person now is a lot less fit then the average person in the 80's. We still have our top talents but as a nation but on the whole were no way as fit as we once were.

If you take out 'nation' and put 'world' that's nearer Shels. I don't think Ireland is any worse than any other developed country.

shels4ever

RoyMcC wrote: »

If you take out 'nation' and put 'world' that's nearer Shels. I don't think Ireland is any worse than any other developed country.

Yep your right there.

Running Bing

RoyMcC wrote: »

Can't agree with you RB. The fact is that no matter how hard many of today's runners train they ain't going to be pushing for the win. Therefore they back off, train less intensley, and take pleasure both in participation with others and achieving personal goals. That's no bad thing.

Thats a fair point Roy but I think thats a choice people make. If running is your past time and you just enjoy getting out a few times a week to stay in shape and doing the odd race here and there for the banter thats absolutely fine in my eyes. After all I partake in plenty of activities outside of running that I certainly dont devote my full attention to and know I will never achieve a very good standard in. I see nothing wrong with that.

It annoys me though when I hear people saying "oh I could never do a 4 hour marathon so Im just happy with what Im doing now" or" I could never run a 30 minute 5 mile so why bother trying". Thats crap imo and I think such attitudes are pervasive nowadays!

There seems to be an attitude out there that says you have to be some sort of gifted super runner to run times like a 30 minute 5 mile, and I dont think thats the case. Like I said if you choose to run as your enjoyment thats fine, but if your running to see how fast you can go or to achieve personal goals at least make those goals challenging imo.

You can't blame the masses for the fall off in standards at the sharp end.

I think the depth of quality has been reduced so much that it has to have some effect on the sharp end.

When you have a race like Ballycotton where the numbers breaking 60 mins has fallen so much I think its only natural that it will be a less competitive race.

I agree with you that the cream always rises to the top and the guys with talent (actual talent, not the talent to break 4 hours in the marathon;)) will always be out front setting good time but its the rest of the top 50, or top 100 that has been hurt by the change in attitude.