Sprinter's physique & decent 10k time...possible?

[Flook]

Ok, so describing my physique as a 'sprinters' might be stretching a point, but my arms and chest are more muscular than the typical middle / long distance runner, and I'd prefer to keep them that way.

At the same time, I've decided to set myself a goal of getting in shape to run a sub-40 minute 10k by next summer, and have been looking at training programmes to allow me to do just that.

I'm going to have work quite hard to hit the 40-minute mark - the last time I did concerted 10k training was four years ago, and my best time was to just squeak under 45 mins, so I know I'm going to have to train better than I did that year. If there was a 10k race tomorrow, I reckon I'd be looking at a time nearer 48 mins right now.

I'm in reasonable shape generally - around 11 st 7 lbs after a month or two of summer over-indulgence, and probably around 15% body fat. About 5'10" tall, 43 years old.

So - the question is - if I want to be able to get under 40 mins, am I going to have to resign myself to getting scrawny thin - or is it feasible for someone of my age etc to get '40-minute fit', and still retain decent upper body musculature?

Thanks in advance for any replies

[pilchardthecat]

Difficult, i would say. You will lose upper body muscle mass and convert some type 2 fibres to type 1 in your lower body in order to get the endurance you need (your legs will get thinner as a consequence). This was my experience anyway

[theshrew]

Im no expert but id think you would loose a bit of your muscle. Doing in that time is pretty fast i think way better than i could do.

Just as a bit of a guide. My friend got pretty big into running a year ago, he trains lots etc not sure what he does on the diet side of things but he's always carried a bit of timber and had fairly large muscles. Hes gone a lot more skinny type build now. However he's running a lot more than 10k.

[goldblum]

Flook said:

Ok, so describing my physique as a 'sprinters' might be stretching a point, but my arms and chest are more muscular than the typical middle / long distance runner, and I'd prefer to keep them that way.

No problem if you eat properly.

Flook said:

At the same time, I've decided to set myself a goal of getting in shape to run a sub-40 minute 10k by next summer, and have been looking at training programmes to allow me to do just that.

I'm going to have work quite hard to hit the 40-minute mark - the last time I did concerted 10k training was four years ago, and my best time was to just squeak under 45 mins, so I know I'm going to have to train better than I did that year. If there was a 10k race tomorrow, I reckon I'd be looking at a time nearer 48 mins right now.

4 years older and you want to beat your pb by 5 minutes? Excellent.

Flook said:

So - the question is - if I want to be able to get under 40 mins, am I going to have to resign myself to getting scrawny thin - or is it feasible for someone of my age etc to get '40-minute fit', and still retain decent upper body musculatur

You will not have to get scrawny thin. The only reason you might lose muscle mass is the synthesis of muscle to protein for fuel: with the correct diet will not happen.Don't overdo the basic endurance, ie your lsd runs, and stick absolutely to your training plan.It's a good idea to do some gym work , ie core and some upper body stuff to help your running but also to keep your muscle density.As we age we lose muscle mass anyway..

[Flook]

goldblum said:

4 years older and you want to beat your pb by 5 minutes? Excellent.

A guy can dream, can't he?

goldblum said:

Don't overdo the basic endurance, ie your lsd runs, and stick absolutely to your training plan.

This could be where I come unstuck - I've sort of got into my head that a lack of core endurance has let me down in the past (have struggled with longer runs / bike rides etc, even at modest pace), and I was planning to use the period from now until the end of the year to really work on that, at the same time as aiming for weight around 11 stone, and BF of around 12%.

I was then going to introduce some HIIT running Jan-Mar, coupled with more weights sessions and a diet aimed at maintaining body-weight.

March onwards I was going to move into a full-on 10k running programme with which has a mixture of endurance, tempo and interval sessions

Pre-Christmas, I'm intending to lose the weight gradually, I think I'm fairly clued up on the diet side of things, and was planning on doing maybe 1 weights session per week...do you think the heavy focus on endurance pre-Xmas is foolish?

[goldblum]

Flook said:

This could be where I come unstuck - I've sort of got into my head that a lack of core endurance has let me down in the past (have struggled with longer runs / bike rides etc, even at modest pace), and I was planning to use the period from now until the end of the year to really work on that, at the same time as aiming for weight around 11 stone, and BF of around 12%.

OK, I think you mean that you think your aerobic endurance has let you down? Using the time from now 'til Xmas to build a solid endurance base is a good plan.If you're training for a 10k you never really need to run more than about 9 miles as LSD. Maximum. I get the impression you are trying to lose bodyfat at the same time but I really wouldn't worry too much as fat will burn away on the LSD runs..just make sure you are eating properly.

Flook said:

I was then going to introduce some HIIT running Jan-Mar, coupled with more weights sessions and a diet aimed at maintaining body-weight.

You will not need HIIT..the training plan you should be following will be calorie-intensive enough.You will start increasing the distance of your LSD runs post Xmas. Make sure you get enough rest if you want to recover and run faster. Don't try and improve at running and weights at the same time.Decide what your main goal is. You should have the same diet more or less from now 'til raceday.

Flook said:

March onwards I was going to move into a full-on 10k running programme with which has a mixture of endurance, tempo and interval sessions.

You should have loads of energy and aerobic endurance by now to concentrate on all aspects of race training.

Flook said:

Pre-Christmas ...do you think the heavy focus on endurance pre-Xmas is foolish?

How heavy? I'd work up to 1x weights and 3x runs by Xmas. Runs probably 2x5 miles and 1x7. Take it easy, you'll reap the rewards later.

Edited by goldblum on Tuesday 28th August 17:10

[mcelliott]

Some info for you that may or may not be of interest - primarily my main sport is cycling, but from October through till the end of December I always do one 10km run a week, as a nice bit of cross training. My run is a mixture of road and off-road (farm tracks and fields) the distance is 9.8kms long and my elevation gain is normally around 290m. Mostly my times are around the 46 minute mark, ocassionally a bit below. No idea what I'd do on the flat. I'm 5ft 8", my body weight is 74kg, reasonably muscular, and my bodyfat measurement is approx 7%.

[mattnunn]

FWIW here's my two pennies, it's the weight that's the problem no physique as such.

I ran reasonably seriously upto my early 20s when I was 10st wet I could do 10K in sub 40mins, but if you're carrying weight, whether it be muscle or cheese and beer, you just won't be able to do the runs needed to get you endurance fitness up to scratch. The 2st or so I carry now above my fighting weight mean it's hard to do the runs needed to get back to that level, i'd have to loose the weight first, then concentrate on training for the running, you can't do them at the same time you'd just get injuries.

that said I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can achieve sub 40mins once or twice by just being bloody minded enough, it'll hurt though.

[MocMocaMoc]

I put 5 miles in 30 minutes last week, which (i think) is the pace you're looking at?

I'm trying to put on some weight right now, running hasn't really hindered that at all. I think it might if im out pounding the pavement every night of the week, but over a reasonably short distance technique is probably more important?

Learning barefoot (although I don't run 'bare' footed as I smashed my foot in trying it) has been a big help to me. Tow striking, overall form etc. Although my rough and ready 'style' has steadily transformed into a bit of a mince as a consequence.

[Hoofy]

goldblum said:

As we age we lose muscle mass anyway..

Not because of ageing! We lose muscle because we get lazy as we get older so we sit on our fat arses more. And thus we put on weight and find it difficult to get rid of it... not because we're getting older but because we have less muscle because we sit on our fat arses more...

[Flook]

Hoofy said:

we get lazy as we get older so we sit on our fat arses more.

Oi!

Actually, I think goldblum's right - As I understand it, while sitting around won't help, the male body's production of muscle repair / building bio-chemistry does fall off a bit of cliff as you get older. Of course you can still control your body composition to a degree with the right training and diet, but your body is less naturally able to help as age takes its course.

Thanks all for responses - am more or less reassured I'm not setting off on a fool's errand - although still in no doubt how well I will need to train to achieve my targets!

[goldblum]

Hoofy said:

goldblum said:

As we age we lose muscle mass anyway..

Not because of ageing! We lose muscle because we get lazy as we get older so we sit on our fat arses more. And thus we put on weight and find it difficult to get rid of it... not because we're getting older but because we have less muscle because we sit on our fat arses more...

Hahaha you wish. I'm afraid once you get beyond 35 years old it's an uphill struggle! Seriously though sarcopenia can be slowed with exercise but if you don't exercise as much as 40% of muscle tissue can be lost between the ages of 35-70.It's a natural process just like losing strength as you age.

[E38Ross]

Should be possible, I was running sub 40 when I ws more built up. Now running around 35 dead but I've trimmed down a bit!

[Highway Star]

Agree it should be possible, you don't need to a skinny short-arse like Ross to run .

I'm a swimmer and have a swimmer/rower's physique - currently 6'2" and about 13st4lbs - relatively 'top-heavy' (plus small beer gut ), but scrawny little legs!

I hadn't done any running for nearly 20 years until a few months ago. Started on my own, couple of runs a week, did a 41.12 10k in May and then got injured. Will be starting again next week, going along to a local club and *hope/aim* to break 40 by the end of the year.

I've seen plenty of bigger chaps at races going along at fair speeds and train with a couple of triathletes who go well under 40 for 10k and like to keep up the beach weights, if you know what I mean.

Just don't go too hard on the road too soon, especially if you are slightly heavy. As soon as I started running solely on the road, my back was playing up.

Edited by Highway Star on Wednesday 29th August 17:46

[Hoofy]

Flook said:

Hoofy said:

we get lazy as we get older so we sit on our fat arses more.

Oi!

Actually, I think goldblum's right - As I understand it, while sitting around won't help, the male body's production of muscle repair / building bio-chemistry does fall off a bit of cliff as you get older. Of course you can still control your body composition to a degree with the right training and diet, but your body is less naturally able to help as age takes its course.

Thanks all for responses - am more or less reassured I'm not setting off on a fool's errand - although still in no doubt how well I will need to train to achieve my targets!

goldblum said:

Hoofy said:

goldblum said:

As we age we lose muscle mass anyway..

Not because of ageing! We lose muscle because we get lazy as we get older so we sit on our fat arses more. And thus we put on weight and find it difficult to get rid of it... not because we're getting older but because we have less muscle because we sit on our fat arses more...

Hahaha you wish. I'm afraid once you get beyond 35 years old it's an uphill struggle! Seriously though sarcopenia can be slowed with exercise but if you don't exercise as much as 40% of muscle tissue can be lost between the ages of 35-70.It's a natural process just like losing strength as you age.

Yeah, you're both right. I might as well give up now.

[TROOPER88]

pilchardthecat said:

Difficult, i would say. You will lose upper body muscle mass and convert some type 2 fibres to type 1 in your lower body in order to get the endurance you need (your legs will get thinner as a consequence). This was my experience anyway

Not true.
Type 1 and type 2 muscle fibres are like chalk and cheese, one can not be made into another one.

There are 2 types of fast twitch: fast twitch glycolytic and fast twitch oxidative. These can change into each other but not 1 to 2 (slow to fast or fast to slow).

If you started training for an endurance event all that would happen is you would loose some muscle mass.

[E38Ross]

TROOPER88 said:

Not true.
Type 1 and type 2 muscle fibres are like chalk and cheese, one can not be made into another one.

There are 2 types of fast twitch: fast twitch glycolytic and fast twitch oxidative. These can change into each other but not 1 to 2 (slow to fast or fast to slow).

If you started training for an endurance event all that would happen is you would loose some muscle mass.

Wrong. Whilst you're correct muscle fibres cannot change type, they do adapt according to the training you do.... So just losing muscle mass is totally wrong.

Learnt that in 1st year physiology at uni!

[Cheib]

Flook said:

I'm in reasonable shape generally - around 11 st 7 lbs after a month or two of summer over-indulgence, and probably around 15% body fat. About 5'10" tall, 43 years old.

So - the question is - if I want to be able to get under 40 mins, am I going to have to resign myself to getting scrawny thin - or is it feasible for someone of my age etc to get '40-minute fit', and still retain decent upper body musculature?

Thanks in advance for any replies

40 mins is a bloody good 10k time but you sound liek you are pretty fit to me.

I would have thought with good training you can get pretty close. I'd put 45 mins as very achievable for someone fit of your build and low 40's as a a definite possibility.

I am 6' 1" 44 years old and 15.5 stone (rugby players build I suppose, probably have a stone I could lose tops) and can run a 10k in just under 50 mins and ....admittedly that kills me and took a long time to build up to.

[Flook]

OK, lots of positive and useful comments here.

The plan, now slightly refined, looks like this:

The 10k training plan I'm going to follow indicates I should be doing the 'long run' component of the training at around an easy 12 kmh, for around 70-80 mins, as the endurance part of a 40 min 10k programme.

So that's the first stake I'm going to put in the ground, then build some speed and longer intervals on top later.

From now until mid-Jan, I'm going to do steady state runs three times per week, gradually & slightly increasing the distance and pace, starting out at about 10 kmh, until I can comfortably (measured by how easy my breathing is) cover 70 minutes at 12 kmh.

I'm then going to follow an eight week programme which includes a mixture of long runs, speed/VO2 intervals and cruise intervals (its the Ben Wisbey programme from endurancetraining.com)

I'll then see how I'm doing, and if things are looking good, or close to good, probably rinse and repeat the programme which will take me up to the Manchester 10k at the end of May.

Haven't quite figured out how I'm going to fit in weights sessions as well as all the above, but it should be possible to do 1 weights session per week, given that the core running sessions are only 3 x per week.

Thanks again for all the replies - much appreciated

[Cheib]

If you get bored of the running when you are doing your training rowing is an excellent way of improving your cardio especially if you're doing intervals or something. There's a reason rowing machines are never used in gyms....because it's bd hard to do for 20 mins or more!