The uphill is going to cost you more than the downhill gives back. This 200' increase is pretty steep. I can easily see your time being 1 minute slower probably more. You should check race times from last year to see how it affected other runners.

the good thing about that hill is it's placement with the peak almost exactly at the midpoint. at least then you will definitely have a negative split, probably a pretty big one...

Just found this thread and am catching up on all the posts because my goal is to break 40 for a 10K -- again. Actually, I'm 52 and broke 40 way back in 1979 on a course on an airport runway. I've managed to break 40 in the 80's, 90's as well and just realized the 00's are coming to a close and it would be nice to break 40 in one more decade as well. My biggest problem is finding a flat fast 10K that's also in the winter months, as I don't run well in heat and humidity (I live in South Carolina -- enough said). 10ks are relatively rare around here and I've only run one this year -- Cooper River Bridge, in 40:58. It is not a fast course, although I did manage to run under 40 on it one time about 10 years ago. I'm running a 12K tomorrow. I'm also training for NY marathon, so I'll probably focus on breaking 40 next year. Would appreciate hearing about fast 10k races in SC, Ga., or NC. And no, Peachtree in July is not one of them.

Pete I run this race every year with my son in a jogging stroller(Yes they actually have a jogging stroller division). It is the fastest 10K in the area. It is not pancake flat but it is as close as you can get in Raleigh.

I posted a 40:56 with my son last year and I still lost the stroller race to a guy with a double stroller. You will break 40:00 on this course!

They let the strollers start a couple of minutes before the rest of the field. If you catch the big yellow stroller then you will know that sub 40:00 is a lock. However, I will be attempting to go sub 40:00 on this course as well. Here is the profile for the new course.

http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=525556[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jim24315:
Hi Pete. Welcome.

This is the best I can do for now:

NC Raleigh - Nov 11 - Old Reliable Run - http://www.unitedwaytriangle.org/run/race_info.asp[/URL" target="_blank">

There's a link to 10k's on page one, the very first post of this thread, to some certified, relatively fast 10k's around the country.

There's also a 50-plus thread on the "Boomers and Beyond" that several oldsters, most of whom are pretty serious about their training, frequent.

I'll add you the list of Sub-40 hopefuls, also on the 1st post on page 1. Stick around.

Jim

<HR>

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

http://This message has been edited by JasonsDrivingForce (edited Sep-23-2007).

Six months ago when I joined this thread I plotted out a nice little road map of goals to help me get from 48 minutes to 39:59 or better. The first few months everything was on target, and in the gym I was under 43 by the end of June. Unfortunately, out in the real world I was stuck in the low 44s. Three races over 12 weeks, all with similar results. Along the way a wiser man than I on this board noted that it might take longer than I thought to hit the magic number.

This past weekend was the date my goal sheet said I would break 40 -- at the Heritage Oaks Bank race in Paso Robles, CA. As race day approached, I knew that wasn't going to happen. Mostly I just didn't want to embarrass myself too badly since this was also the USATF Master's 10K Championship. Racing behind 60- and 70- year-olds who look (and run) like they're 40 is pretty inspiring and they helped bring me down to 42:17. While only ranking 19th out of 21 in my 50-54 age group, I was happy advancing my outdoor PR by more than a minute and a half. I'm still looking forward to breaking 40, if not this year, then 2008 for sure.


http://This message has been edited by stovaleani (edited Sep-24-2007).

http://This message has been edited by stovaleani (edited Sep-24-2007).

(PeteOboyle)
After noticing no one uses their real name on this board, I changed my member name to loverunnin. Anyway, thanks for the tip on Old Reliable 10K. I've actually wanted to do that for years. This year is no good as it is just a week after NY marathon and I'll still be recovering. I did the 12K this weekend (Ray Tanner Home Run, Columbia, SC) and only averaged 7:11 miles so way off sub-40 pace for a 10K. But it was hot and humid and somewhat hilly. I know that heat and humidty affect me more than others because people I normally beat were ahead of me Sat. I won't really know what I can do until I race on a nice cool day. Hopefully, NY will be that, although it's never been in the 3 previous times I've run it (so why keep running it?). Will check out the 50-plus board as well.

Well, I thought I had a good shot at sub-40 yesterday. I ought to be in sub-40 shape now, and I was running on a pretty flat course, with great weather.

The good news is: I won the race! That's a first! And a total shock.

The bad news is: I ran 40:37. It was a pretty small race, maybe 45 people. And most of the faster runners ran the associated half.

The 10K course was an out and back. The half started at the same time, and shared the course through 5K. I started strong, holding pace through the outward section. Approaching the turnaround, there was a pack of four guys a bit ahead of me. They didn't turn around. Huh! So I was the 10K leader?!

After the turnaround, I could see that the the 2nd place guy was quite a ways back. So, I had a win in the bag, and the race had become a time trial. I'm sure that contributed to my not being able to hold pace. Kilometer 6 was 4:08 (maybe because of the turnaround), and I kind of lost heart after that. I lost another two or three seconds per kilometer, until during km 9 I went off course, running a 4:16. OK, no chance after that. And I was only able to pull out a 4:02 for the last kilometer, even with my "kick".

My one consolation is, it was a trail race, 90% gravel. Fine gravel, but I could definitely feel the difference on the brief pavement sections. I'm not really sure how big a time difference that translates to. But I don't like the comparison with a very hilly 10K I ran a month ago in 40:55. I'm thinking now that course must have been short.

I was also discouraged during the race by the Garmin error. At least, I think the course was accurate. But I kept the lap pace under 4:00/km except when I went off course. 3:55 pace kept turning into 4:02 laps. The measured length was 10.26 km.

I was really hoping for a sub-40 here, to give me confidence for 3:10 going into the Portland marathon in two weeks. Oh well. I'm still going for it. And I may have another shot or two at sub-40 later this year.

Jim,

Nice job on your sub 40.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">