What's the point?
That was me and no its not rubbish at all.I'm also 23 and have a PB in 10k in a triathlon of 37 mins, you can go sub40 but it will take time, as the quicker you get the harder it is to become even quicker.
Whoever said you can't do it on 20 miles a week is talking rubbish.
running 3 times a week for an hour at the same pace will only get you so far. You'd be better off building to 4 or 5 runs with most being 30-45 mins and only doing one long run per week/fortnight. Then you can work on your top end speed, threshold speed and actually improve your bodies ability to maintain a quicker pace by doing intervals etc.
I'm also 23 but do triathlons and have a race PB of 37 mins in 10k, you can go sub40 but it will take time, as the quicker you get the harder it is to become even quicker.
Whoever said you can't do it on 20 miles a week is talking rubbish.
running 3 times a week for an hour at the same pace will only get you so far. You'd be better off building to 4 or 5 runs with most being 30-45 mins and only doing one long run per week/fortnight. Then you can work on your top end speed, threshold speed and actually improve your bodies ability to maintain a quicker pace by doing intervals etc.
that's completely subjective though. If this guy is serious about his running by all means increase the mileage, build volume and then add the intensity. But it's not impossible to get a sub40 by fitting in your 20 miles a week. Certainly 25, which he could easily fit in after a few weeks build.That was me and no its not rubbish at all.
For a start, what you are advocating he runs is going to work out at more than 20 miles.
Secondly, adding in tempo or intervals on low mileage will not get the best results. They are the icing on the cake. Long, steady miles is the base. No good having icing with no base!
I'd be interested to see a training plan that suggests it would get you sub 40 on 20 miles a week.
I made a guess of 20 miles based on the time he was running for and his level. Unless he is sprinting round it will be there or there abouts.that's completely subjective though. If this guy is serious about his running by all means increase the mileage, build volume and then add the intensity. But it's not impossible to get a sub40 by fitting in your 20 miles a week. Certainly 25, which he could easily fit in after a few weeks build.
EDIT: I'm not even sure where we have pulled 20 miles out from, it's not in the OP
I estimated 20 miles based on his time running and his level. Would think with those times he will train at around 9 minute miles which would come out at 20 miles.that's completely subjective though. If this guy is serious about his running by all means increase the mileage, build volume and then add the intensity. But it's not impossible to get a sub40 by fitting in your 20 miles a week. Certainly 25, which he could easily fit in after a few weeks build.
EDIT: I'm not even sure where we have pulled 20 miles out from, it's not in the OP
If it was me, I would increase the milage a bit; but I disagree that he should increase it by 'quite a bit'. He's only training for a short distance but wants to get a better time. So although putting in the miles will certainly benefit, I'd focus more on speed work.OP - if you want to get to sub 40, you are going to need to increase your weekly mileage by quite a bit. No way you will do it on 20 miles a week