Home Chat General Chat

10k running time

I'd say 40 mins is pretty good, depending on age etc. Mine's about 50 mins and i'm slooooooowww. In fact, i think i could swim faster than that....


  • BlinkybazBlinkybaz Posts: 1,144
    Jesster is right 40 mins is a good time. As also siad it very much depends on the typr of run and age. if its cross country then add on 5 mins. hilly runs need time added on!

    i am looking to come in around 41 mins ay mo. hope to get this under 39 mins by the end of the summer.
  • teamspiritteamspirit Posts: 148
    Hi all

    what would you guys (and girls sorry) would you say is a good 10k running time.
  • FlavadaveFlavadave Posts: 749
    Blinkybaz wrote:

    i am looking to come in around 41 mins ay mo. hope to get this under 49 mins by the end of the summer.

    Always good to aim low Blinkybaz! [:D]
  • danny_sdanny_s Posts: 235
    I think breaking 40 is a good difference between a 'fast' 10k and an average 10k for me. Being below 4min/km is a big landmark in my mind. That differs a lot depending on your history, physiology and the course you're doing it on, so YMMV.

  • [toPh][toPh] Posts: 244
    Flavadave wrote:
    ORIGINAL: Blinkybaz

    i am looking to come in around 41 mins ay mo. hope to get this under 49 mins by the end of the summer.

    Always good to aim low Blinkybaz! [:D]

    That's just what I was thinking!

  • ironkavironkav Posts: 259
    if you have no running background (like me) aim first for a sub 50. Then a sub 45. A friend of mine (who is a top tri athlete in Ireland) told me to not get disappointed if i don't break 40 mins in my first year. Its a very fast time.

    My fastest 10k on a hilly "Great Ireland Run 2009" Phoenix park is 46' 22. Without the hills (and there were lots), and the crowds (11000, who wrongly positioned themselves in the estimated finishing time queue so my first 2k was v slow) maybe sub 45,44.

    pace yourself



  • BlinkybazBlinkybaz Posts: 1,144
    Point taken on board and amended. A message to self.....Read before submitting.
  • GHarvGHarv Posts: 456
    Going back to my last two 10Ks - 45 mins put me in the top 25% and in my last race 43 put me top 15%.

    On that i reckon sub 40 should mean top 10%.

    Sub 35 top 5 % and so on till you get to the 30 and below of probably being in the top 1%.

    Sub 50 tho is still good going and is a big milestone for many.

  • md6md6 Posts: 969
    I think it depends on the course and as others have said your background. I used to be quite a short distance runner at school (5k max) and so after several years where i hadn't run further than about 2miles i started running again and my first 10k was a horrible afair, with aches pains and a time of 55mins. I have recently dropped that to about 50mins (as part of a half marathon) so i fully expect to hit about 47 or quicker in my next one. But to run sub 40, bear in mind that is 4min/k, or in old speak about 6:30 mile pace. That is not at all slow (i can't sustain that for more than about 1 mile at the moment). I guess what I am saying is that what's a good time for you, or me or anyone else here could vary wildly. A friend of mine is a very good runner and would be rally upset at a 40min 10k, I would be ecstatic at that.
  • GHarvGHarv Posts: 456
    GHarv wrote:

    Going back to my last two 10Ks - 45 mins put me in the top 25% and in my last race 43 put me top 15%.

    On that i reckon sub 40 should mean top 10%.

    Sub 35 top 5 % and so on till you get to the 30 and below of probably being in the top 1%.

    Sub 50 tho is still good going and is a big milestone for many.

    No matter what the course and runner i think this should still prove a reasonable guide.

  • teamspiritteamspirit Posts: 148
    50mins is doable but think 40 is way off at the mo lol
  • ironkavironkav Posts: 259
    stick in there :)
  • JulesJules Posts: 987
    Never actually run a straight 10K.

    I tend to think in minutes per mile. Looking at my training times I'm guestimate somewhere between 7 and 8 min/mile. so about 44 to 49 minutes ish.

    For those that know, how much slower is you 10K run leg of an OD tri, as compared to just a 10K run by itself?
  • garyrobertsgaryroberts Posts: 869
    I'm only 2'6" so do well to cover 10k in just under 50. :o(
  • SwizzlenapSwizzlenap Posts: 160
    I'd love to do a 40min 10k! My first was 55 but that was first ever proper run after smoking for a long time.

    Currently about 46 mins but 40 is certainly something to aim for.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 335
    10k I wish only just got my head around 5k but having said that found that my 5k speed after swim and bike at w/end was only 2mins off my best
  • husslerhussler Posts: 237
    If your looking to win races you have to be able to do sub 36 mins for a 10k. There are even guys and gals who do 30-32min 10k's!!!

    Winning age groups has to sub 38mins

    A good Age Group placing then 40mins is the benchmark,

    Anything between 40-50 mins is an average pace middle of the pack type run.....

    But its all course dependant.....

    Take dambuster for an example, I can cover that 10k in around 35mins... but put me on Wimbleball 10k then its 42mins!

    A straight 10k nothing else against a 10k in an Olympic Tri depends on training and ability....... there isnt much difference between my two but someone who is a novice say.. would prob expect to see anything upto 4 or 5 mins difference... But its hard to say. Its a personal thing and not a generalisation of everyones ability.
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    "Good" is subjective. Anything faster than what you did before is good!

    However, there are published age standards - if you meet the standards then your times are recorded for posterity as a "matter of record".

    If you want an objective definition of "good", then this is probably the best. These aren't "elite" - these are good performances for a "club runner". You won't necessarily be winning races with these times. But you get the qudos of being recognised by your peers.

    These standards, and record of times, have now moved to the Internet.

    Until about now, they were held at www.atheleticsdata.com. In the adrenline rush towards 2012, they've been revamped into www.thepowerof10.info. I've only just noticed this, in looking for the standards to create this message. It's made me rather annoyed, not only is this a pointless domain name which does nothing but undermine the authority of the system, it witters on about raising the standards, but, appears to completely omit actually publishing them. Fume.

    Anyway, From memory, the standard time for a 10K for a M40 (Male, 40 - 44) is 36:30.

    Anything less that this just won't do!

    In the context of a Triathlon, then you can expect the times to be a bit lower.

    [I'm about to compose an angry email to the site moaning about the seemingly pointless change of domain name and weak content]

  • TommiTriTommiTri Posts: 879
    crap, I'm on that list, but bear in mind it was an insanely hilly course and I had a knacked hip!
  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    Can you remember what your age standard is?
  • GGBGGB Posts: 482
    Well I am 34 and can do the 10k in about 47 minutes, I only started running in December last year though - running was never my forte.

  • I'm in the subjective camp.

    I recorded a PB for the 10k yesterday. 53.27..... Dorking 10k Skyline....

    I'm totally chuffed and that's what I'm interested in... it was Good...... saying that the winner only recorded just under 41 mins so was tough course.

    as long as you come away happy with the amount of effort you put times don't really matter...

    so that's enough for a me in the "I'm a half full type of guy" [:D]
  • my straight run time is about 19mins for 5km and 39 mins for 10km. However, what with the swimming and biking bits, my PBs in triathlons are 21mins and 44mins (the latter on a slightly hilly course). I guess I need to do more brick training, because I always seem to spend the first 1km of every race running off cramp, then I get a stitch on my left side, then on my right, and then I finally start to get into a rythym before getting another stitch and seeing all the people I battled past coming back past me....

  • Jack HughesJack Hughes Posts: 1,262
    Error whilst Doing a Replacement, Error in srv_convert.
  • PC_67PC_67 Posts: 196
    My PB was in a race last November - 43:28. My PB in a triathlon was 46:20 in Windsor.

    I'm hoping to do sub 45 in the 2 OD Tri races I'm doing this summer.

    I'll be 42 by then.

    I'm aiming to get below (or at) 40 mins in a regular 10k race. I'm training for my first marathon so maybe that'll make a difference.
  • Interesting question!

    'good' seems to be a matter for debate - as a not terribly serious runner, sub 40mins is 'serious' running, sub 50 is 'running', over 50 isn't competitive (at least for a 35+ male).

    interestingly, the chap who won the London Tri last year ran just under 40 mins in the New Year Hyde Park 10k.... clearly he'd not had as much to drink the night before as I had!

    PC_67 - you _should_ find your 10k times will drop - I was told by several people that I'd get a 10K PB about a month after my Marathon - and I managed 45.20... a year later, and I managed 46.40, so the fitness seems to stay. However, if you want to get _fast_ at 10k's, you need to train for them - marathon training is different... and I've a female friend who runs sub 40 10k's, and she _wont_ do tri as she doesn't want to lose her running competitiveness...
  • GGGG Posts: 82
    For me a good 10k running time would be one where you can honestly say to yourself that you went from the "b of the bang" [;)], you gave it everything. That could be a 28 or 60 mins, i dont think it matters.

    For 99% of us there is always someone fitter, I think its a mistake worrying too much about times. I spent last year timing, analysing and beating myself up about training and racing. This year no watch, enjoying my training and ...faster times.

    10k is a painfull distance, i think the way to get better is to do intervals, get used to doing them then gradually start to push yourself harder and harder.


  • SamRSamR Posts: 19
    I just ran a P.B. on my regular route [:D]!

    10.36K in 49.23 and i now feel half dead/ecstatic at the same time!

    I think i need to start doing a few more intervals though after reading this thread, I have only been doing straight runs up until now. I want to get my 10k time down to 45mins by the end of the summer as i think running is my weakest discipline.

  • MowfMowf Posts: 272
    I managed a 10k PB last weekend - the first time I have been able to do a year on year comparision on the same race:

    2008 - 41:40 - just outside top 50

    2009 - 38:58 - just outside top 20

    Dead happy. But now I need to go faster... Any ideas?
  • garyrobertsgaryroberts Posts: 869

    That's how fast i run in my dreams! Well done dude, i wish i could even get close to that. You have my complete admiration. That's a massive improvement based on a fast time to start with. How long have you been running?

    As for going faster, i would recommend day dreaming of being chased by aliens!
Sign In or Register to comment.