Women 10 Round Numbers 2019

HelenAnne

Women, anyone want to try this this year?

Here's last year's. Hope we get a few more women and a few more numbers this year

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107481473


Name|400m<70 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<40m|10miles<70min|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<200min

HelenAnnel ||||||33:50||||
||| |||| |||



That 5-mile time is from the Raheny 5 this year.

HelenAnne

Any other takers??

I had a bash at the 5k this morning (well, not really - I tried hard at a 5k, but I'm not really sub-20 fast at the moment). 20.34, so hopefully by the summer I might put that one on the table too.

Anyone care to join me on the table *lure lure lure* (I'd like some company!)

ReeReeG

I'd love to but not sure I'm capable of those times ðŸ˜

HelenAnne

ReeReeG wrote: »

I'd love to but not sure I'm capable of those times ðŸ˜

I bet you are! I'd always encourage people to start with the 5 mile (it's the easiest, that's why I always manage it )

As an aside though - I can't even remember who set the times. The table has been going since long before I was on boards. I wonder - in the interests of participation - is it worth some of us women on boards having a discussion about a new set of numbers to aim for? The table is meant to be challenging, but achievable, so maybe the numbers need tweaking. What round numbers would you try for across the distances? Dream times for you?

ReeReeG

HelenAnne wrote:

As an aside though - I can't even remember who set the times. The table has been going since long before I was on boards. I wonder - in the interests of participation - is it worth some of us women on boards having a discussion about a new set of numbers to aim for? The table is meant to be challenging, but achievable, so maybe the numbers need tweaking. What round numbers would you try for across the distances? Dream times for you?

Yeah I did wonder about some of them. For example, there are a lot of quite strong women in my meet and train group but I can honestly only think of one whose broken 1.30 for a HM. I'd imagine 1.35 or 1.40 is a better target maybe?

ReeReeG

ReeReeG wrote:

Yeah I did wonder about some of them. For example, there are a lot of quite strong women in my meet and train group but I can honestly only think of one whose broken 1.30 for a HM. I'd imagine 1.35 or 1.40 is a better target maybe?

Oh wait I'm bad at maths...100 mins is 1.40 hahahaha

HelenAnne

ReeReeG wrote: »

Oh wait I'm bad at maths...100 mins is 1.40 hahahaha

The half is one of the easier ones, I think. I think (and this probably just reflects my own running weaknesses) that the 40 minute 10k & 70 minute 10 mile are the hardest.

ReeReeG

HelenAnne wrote:

The half is one of the easier ones, I think. I think (and this probably just reflects my own running weaknesses) that the 40 minute 10k & 70 minute 10 mile are the hardest.

Yeah maybe adding a couple of minutes to those would see some people adding to the table...would that still be a round number

Murph_D

I remember some discussion of this in the past, about the women’s times being relatively more difficult than the times in the general Round Numbers table. The 5k and Marathon times are certainly much harder than the ‘male’ equivalents. A different set was proposed - still very challenging but a fairer comparison. Maybe it was shot down because the numbers weren’t ‘round’ enough?

HelenAnne

Murph_D wrote: »

I remember some discussion of this in the past, about the women’s times being relatively more difficult than the times in the general Round Numbers table. The 5k and Marathon times are certainly much harder than the ‘male’ equivalents. A different set was proposed - still very challenging but a fairer comparison. Maybe it was shot down because the numbers weren’t ‘round’ enough?

Oh, maybe I'll try to find that table ... BUT if the tables are made by the Mods, or if anyone is very attached to the old ones, I certainly don't want to start a boards.ie kerfuffle about it. It's just that a few years ago we had loads of activity on the table and it was fun and motivating. If making some of the numbers more achievable would put more names on the table, I'd be all for it.

Mods, who should I clear making changes to the table with?

Murph_D wrote: »

The 5k and Marathon times are certainly much harder than the ‘male’ equivalents.

(Personally I'd like to keep the 20 min 5k, because if we make it sub-21 I've already done that loads of times, but if others would like to aim for 21 or 22 that's fine by me. )

Murph_D

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056621274/1/#post78383671

ReeReeG

HelenAnne wrote:

(Personally I'd like to keep the 20 min 5k, because if we make it sub-21 I've already done that loads of times, but if others would like to aim for 21 or 22 that's fine by me. )

I think a lot of us female folk on here aspire to your times HA so I'd be all for using what you think as a guideline!

El CabaIIo

Murph_D wrote: »

I remember some discussion of this in the past, about the women’s times being relatively more difficult than the times in the general Round Numbers table. The 5k and Marathon times are certainly much harder than the ‘male’ equivalents. A different set was proposed - still very challenging but a fairer comparison. Maybe it was shot down because the numbers weren’t ‘round’ enough?

It never ends well. Like the year the Novice, intermediate and advanced tables were added and the forum nearly imploded. I'd disagree that the womens table is more difficult than the mens though. A fairly good rule of men's to womens times is 10%

The Women's 400 is easier
The 800 is easier
The mile is easier
The 3k is easier
The 5k is harder
The 10k is harder
The 10 mile is easier
The half is about equal
The marathon is about equal

The 10k and5k might be harder than the mens but the mens table also has one much harder than the womens as well like the 10 mile, the 3k, the mile, the 800m and the 400m.

I think it all balances out really. Some targets are hard, some are easier and some are in between. I'm not really bothered what people decide to do with it as it has no effect on me but I'm a stats geek and can't help myself from comparisons.

Murph_D

El CabaIIo wrote: »

It never ends well. Like the year the Novice, intermediate and advanced tables were added and the forum nearly imploded. I'd disagree that the womens table is more difficult than the mens though. A fairly good rule of men's to womens times is 10%

The Women's 400 is easier
The 800 is easier
The mile is easier
The 3k is easier
The 5k is harder
The 10k is harder
The 10 mile is easier
The half is about equal
The marathon is about equal

The 10k and5k might be harder than the mens but the mens table also has one much harder than the womens as well like the 10 mile, the 3k, the mile, the 800m and the 400m.

I think it all balances out really. Some targets are hard, some are easier and some are in between. I'm not really bothered what people decide to do with it as it has no effect on me but I'm a stats geek and can't help myself from comparisons.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m just pointing out that there’s been discussion of this in the past that might be worth revisiting.

The philosophy behind the numbers was supposed to be ‘challenging but achievable’. There’s now 5 or 6 years of tables to look back on and assess how achievable those numbers turned out to be.

The ‘b’ grade table a few years ago was pretty much boycotted, and rightly so (not because of the numbers though!)

HelenAnne

OK, maybe we should just leave it so. My main aim for this year is the sub-20 5k, and if I manage that I can put it in on the men's table.

We can always come back to the women's table when more people are keen to do it. I was just floating the idea of changing it ... didn't realise it had been mentioned before.

OOnegative

HelenAnne wrote: »

OK, maybe we should just leave it so. My main aim for this year is the sub-20 5k, and if I manage that I can put it in on the men's table.

We can always come back to the women's table when more people are keen to do it. I was just floating the idea of changing it ... didn't realise it had been mentioned before.

Say it’s up to ye ladies to change it though, as RGG has said, many aspire to run as fast yourself. Come up with times that feel challengeable & stick with them?

Murph_D

I doubt if there’s anything in the forum charter to prevent anyone creating a new thread based on a new set of numbers, if that’s what they want to do. Go for it. It took me 5 years to make the table myself, mind, and only in two categories. I must say it was motivational though, so it’s good to have genuinely challenging (but achievable, with work and effort) milestone times.

ReeReeG

Murph_D wrote:

I doubt if there’s anything in the forum charter to prevent anyone creating a new thread based on a new set of numbers, if that’s what they want to do. Go for it. It took me 5 years to make the table myself, mind, and only in two categories. I must say it was motivational though, so it’s good to have genuinely challenging (but achievable, with work and effort) milestone times.

Yeah in fairness I would LOVE some of those times on the table, and if it takes me a few more years, then so be it. It is motivating, and would be an extra reward to get my name up there.

ariana`

Those times seem insanely fast to me and right now it's very hard to imagine ever getting my name on the table but at the same time it's something to aim for and I don't think there'd be the same satisfaction knowing the numbers had been diluted over the years. We have a few ladies coming through the ranks here who i think are well capable of getting their names on it without lowering the bar so i think we should leave it. But that's just my opinion fwiw

HelenAnne

Ok! Let’s leave it so. Good to get a bit of discussion going anyway. Thanks all!

ariana`

HelenAnne wrote: »

Ok! Let’s leave it so. Good to get a bit of discussion going anyway. Thanks all!

I'm happy to leave it open for discussion if others want to weigh in. It seems you are in a league of your own at the moment but hopefully not forever! I don't know why but the 100 min HM seems the most doable to me so maybe i'll make that a target for 2020

By the way do you happen to have an article in the current edition of IR? It's a great article

skyblue46

ariana` wrote: »

I'm happy to leave it open for discussion if others want to weigh in. It seems you are in a league of your own at the moment but hopefully not forever! I don't know why but the 100 min HM seems the most doable to me so maybe i'll make that a target for 2020

By the way do you happen to have an article in the current edition of IR? It's a great article

I agree E, there are a few that have every chance of hitting those times. It's just one of those things that at the moment most of the female posters are novices/grads and improvement should be substantial. Times may seem to be out of reach but I think some of them are achievable for lots of ye!

Murph_D

3 mins for the 800 looks the most achievable to me. Plenty of opportunities with NIA and graded meets coming up soon too. But yes, the 1:40 half is a good target. aquinn ran 1:41 last year, I believe. Would expect she has her eye on that number this year.

HelenAnne

ariana` wrote: »

I'm happy to leave it open for discussion if others want to weigh in. It seems you are in a league of your own at the moment but hopefully not forever! I don't know why but the 100 min HM seems the most doable to me so maybe i'll make that a target for 2020

By the way do you happen to have an article in the current edition of IR? It's a great article

Yes I do! Well spotted! Thanks very much & glad you liked it 😀

ReeReeG

Murph_D wrote:

3 mins for the 800 looks the most achievable to me. Plenty of opportunities with NIA and graded meets coming up soon too. But yes, the 1:40 half is a good target. aquinn ran 1:41 last year, I believe. Would expect she has her eye on that number this year.

I'd love to try a 800m sometime and in fact was reading your log the other day out of curiosity to see what kind of training you did for it! Might try that Trinity race for a larf

Murph_D

It’s only 6 secs per lap faster than the Round Numbers 5k pace, so probably the best distance to target if you want to get on that table.

The Trinity races are very enjoyable The grass track wouldn’t be the fastest, but a good introduction. I’ll certainly have it on the schedule this summer. Would you try the Graded Meets? A bit more intense but faster surfaces. And you already know all about NIA.

ReeReeG

Murph_D wrote:

The Trinity races are very enjoyable The grass track wouldn’t be the fastest, but a good introduction. I’ll certainly have it on the schedule this summer. Would you try the Graded Meets? A bit more intense but faster surfaces. And you already know all about NIA.

I did a 1500m in Tallaght in 2017, came last but enjoyed it nonetheless 😀

ariana`

Murph_D wrote: »

3 mins for the 800 looks the most achievable to me. Plenty of opportunities with NIA and graded meets coming up soon too. But yes, the 1:40 half is a good target. aquinn ran 1:41 last year, I believe. Would expect she has her eye on that number this year.

Thanks. Must check out if there's any equivalent in the west. I'd love to try something like that.

HelenAnne wrote: »

Yes I do! Well spotted! Thanks very much & glad you liked it &#55357;&#56832;

I wouldn't have have copped it was you only for your Q&A session here last year! It was a very good read, very practical.

RayCun

HelenAnne wrote: »

As an aside though - I can't even remember who set the times.

I went trawling through the archives, and discovered that you started the discussion

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78370252&postcount=138

this thread
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056500252

and here's the thread that started it all off
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57898842

and only looking back at that original post do I see that Racing Flat also had suggested times for women...

RayCun

Wow, going down the rabbit hole on all those threads...

Funny to see people like Krusty and BeepBeep talking about aiming for a couple of the times on the list :pac:

But also reminded me why I prefer the "Best of 201x" threads. The Round Numbers threads always end up in arguments about the times being too easy (alas! the state of running today, in times gone by people would run those times as part of their warm-up) or too hard (elitist bastards and dickwavers, no wonder people are scared to join clubs!)

HelenAnne

Wow! 2012-me just threw a grenade in and swanned off

It seems like people want to keep the table as it is, but maybe anyone wanting to get onto the current table in the future could use those times suggested for women by Racing Flat as a stepping stone (I don't mean have two tables on the go, I just mean write Racing Flat's times in their running journal TM (:)) and work towards them, and then once we've achieved them move on to the times in the current table.

Here are the interim female times, if anyone wants to just work towards them themselves?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57898842

Thanks, Ray!

RayCun

the guy who came up with the original challenge was the first poster to hit all the targets in a year, he said this afterwards

So this has caused a lot of controversy with people arguing which is harder, that they're all easy, that they're not equivalent etc. etc. but they were missing the point. It was simply a case of fellows starting running later in life after giving up other sports or wanting to get fit, lose weight or whatever will start off jogging enter a race, just want to complete and then might want to go faster the nest time. So they might set a target. I was that person, ran a 10k as my first race in 42, immediately wanted to do it in 40. A few weeks later entered a 5k did 19:59 on the beach, then entered the marathon race series. The 5m I ran 32:30 or so and I looked on enviously at the lads under 30 thinking they were real athletes, couldn't believe how skinny they were etc. So they were just round numbers really that seemed to be something to aim for. Ran 67:30 for the 10m and thought you'd have to be practically professional to run 60. Did 90:59 for HM, so started thinking about 90 and so on. 3:15 in the marathon and I had the bug (for shorter distances, had started to lose weight and entered the marathon to keep me training rather than giving up after 2 nights like every other attempt to lose weight but got a much greater buzz from the shorter stuff than the longer). Joined a club and got introduced to speed training, Then you enter a club race and run an 800m or 1m, something you might never consider otherwise and that's the ultimate buzz. Nothing like the speed, the tactics, the extremely close competition (ever win, or lose a race on a dip? What a feeling!). First 1m was 5:08 so immediately wanted a sub 5. Had a few attempts the first year and got closer but no cigar. Then the next summer smashed it on the first attempt with 4:55, a few weeks later ran 4:50. So there's a bit of experience needed for the shorter races, lots of training and then improvements come in chunks.

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

the guy who came up with the original challenge was the first poster to hit all the targets in a year, he said this afterwards

Worth mentioning the original challenge didn't have a 400m in it. I think only happygoose has completed the full challenge from memory. Krusty got within a couple of tenths.

BeepBeep67

RayCun wrote: »

Wow, going down the rabbit hole on all those threads...

Funny to see people like Krusty and BeepBeep talking about aiming for a couple of the times on the list :pac:

But also reminded me why I prefer the "Best of 201x" threads. The Round Numbers threads always end up in arguments about the times being too easy (alas! the state of running today, in times gone by people would run those times as part of their warm-up) or too hard (elitist bastards and dickwavers, no wonder people are scared to join clubs!)

Did manage 7 in a calendar year (2014) and 9 in a 12 month period (over 2013/14), never even attempted or trained for the 400m, would probably end up doing a Derek Redmond.

Hedgehoggy

Would love to be able to do some of the time here... A sub 20 5k would be a long term goal of mine. Hopefully will be able to contribute to the table a little. The half marathon time is within reach I think.

chickey2

I'd definitely like to aim for some of those times but it won't be any time soon!

Hope it's not rude to ask but how old are you Helen?

hillsiderunner

I would also love to aim for some of these, but feel quite far away from it right now. But have good consistency the past 8months so you never know with some more speed training.

Have had my eye on the 5mile target for a few years (of interrupted running) and the pace for the 5miler would just be some secs below 22mins if doing that pace over a 5k. So for myself that 5k time will be a stepping stone.

HelenAnne

chickey2 wrote: »

I'd definitely like to aim for some of those times but it won't be any time soon!

Hope it's not rude to ask but how old are you Helen?

Not at all! I’m 43. I started running at about 34 - actually I started about 9 years ago next month!

chickey2

HelenAnne wrote: »

Not at all! I’m 43. I started running at about 34 - actually I started about 9 years ago next month!

Same age as me. I've no excuses so!

HelenAnne

chickey2 wrote: »

Same age as me. I've no excuses so!

I have a 50 year old clubmate who ran 18.16 for 5k this year, and is always under 19 at the parkrun - I wouldn't even make a club team for the O40 women in my club at the moment! - and another F50 pal broke 3.30 in DCM last year - so I've no excuses not to get faster either

It's very motivating to see older women way running faster than me - it shows there's still time for us all to improve!

Murph_D

Well? Any updates?

HelenAnne

Murph_D wrote: »

Well? Any updates?

I've gone off the boil this year! Best times were 6.02 for a mile, 20.16 for a 5k, 12.40 for 2 miles -- all before June.

Since then I've been plagued by side stitches when racing, so I don't think I'm going to run any round numbers this year.

I THINK (though it's unofficial) I probably did run under 6 for a mile in the Road Relays - but the lap is longer than a mile, so no way of knowing for sure. here's to next year!

ETA: forgot I ran 33.36 in the Terenure 5 mile, so that's one for the table.

Hedgehoggy

HelenAnne wrote: »

Women, anyone want to try this this year?

Here's last year's. Hope we get a few more women and a few more numbers this year

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107481473


Name|400m<70 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<40m|10miles<70min|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<200min

HelenAnnel ||||||33:50||||
||| |||| |||



That 5-mile time is from the Raheny 5 this year.

Name|400m<70 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<40m|10miles<70min|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<200min

HelenAnnel ||||||33:50||||
||| |||| |||
Hedgehoggyl |||||||||1:35:20|
||| |||| |||





Probably the easiest to get - Ratoath Half Marathon (1.35.20) - reckon I'd be a good bit off the others
(Hopefully I've used the table properly )

HelenAnne

Hedgehoggy wrote: »

Name|400m<70 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<40m|10miles<70min|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<200min

HelenAnnel ||||||33:50||||
||| |||| |||
Hedgehoggyl |||||||||1:35:20|
||| |||| |||





Probably the easiest to get - Ratoath Half Marathon (1.35.20) - reckon I'd be a good bit off the others
(Hopefully I've used the table properly )

Well done! That's a great time. I've (not this year, but in the past) done the 1 mile, the 5k and the 5 mile, but my best half is 1.36, so you'd be well able to smash the others! Great running!

HelenAnne

Name|400m<70 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<40m|10miles<70min|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<200min

HelenAnnel ||||||33:36||||
||| |||| |||
Hedgehoggyl |||||||||1:35:20|
||| |||| |||

Hedgehoggy

HelenAnne wrote: »

Well done! That's a great time. I've (not this year, but in the past) done the 1 mile, the 5k and the 5 mile, but my best half is 1.36, so you'd be well able to smash the others! Great running!

Thanks a mill - I'm chuffed with the time alright. Using the half time in mcmillan calculator gives me a better 5k and 10k time than my current PBs (20.52/43.58) so hoping to have a bit of a stab at a 5k PB before the end of the year but I'm a long way off a sub-20 still.... maybe next yr!!!!!
Your times in the 1- 5 mile are so impressive. Great inspiration!

Murph_D

Name|400m<70 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<6 min|3k<12min|5k<20min|5mile<35min|10k<40m|10miles<70min|Half Marathon<100mins|Marathon<200min
HelenAnne||||||33:36||||
Hedgehoggy |||||||||1:35:20|


Well done both. Excellent times! Just tidying up that table. Hopefully a few more candidates out there over coming months (and years).