If RW is wrong... then what is a 'serious' 5k time?

Men under 40: Sub 20

Women under 40: Sub 23

This is very general though, as people who are very talented can run these times talented, while people with very little talented can be serious but not run these times.

The ONLY one with a brain wrote:

There is no such thing as a serious 5k time. There are only serious runners.

Some non-serious runners will go under 16 minutes. Some serious runners will never break 24 minutes.

This is true. People have different talent levels, so you can't really judge a runner's level of dedication solely by the times they run.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by "serious". If you mean "dedicated and trains hard" then the above statements hold true. If you mean "competitive" then we can talk about times. But in that case, 20 minutes certainly isn't the benchmark. For men under 40, a time of 15-16 minutes is required to have a chance at winning most 5k fun runs. But even then, if we're going to equate "serious" with "competitive" we have to decide: Competitive on what level? Maybe you're not a serious runner unless you make a living at it and are world class.

I will agree with what one other poster said about most men under 40 being capable of sub 18 if they really train hard over a long period of time. Or at least sub-19. 6 min pace doesn't really require a significant amount of natural speed.

This is both funny and also helps reinforce The ONLY one with a brain's argument, but to be talking about "serious" 5k times in the context of 5k "fun runs"!? Love it!

Full disclosure: I am a slowpoke. My "serious" 5k time is 19:45, so 20 minutes did represent a landmark for me. My best run ever was a 1:29 half.

I coach at a club of 'weekend warriers' but a lot of the ones doing 20 mins + on the mens side are not training every day - or turning up to the interval/hill sessions!

When I look at resumes, I like to see stuff like running in the resume. Seeing something like running, biking, swimming, rowing, tells me how they may deal with stress. It also tells me that they may continue to work hard even when things are uncomfortable. The list can go on and on: less likely to be needy, not as much complaining, fewer sick days...

Add to that list sneaking away in the middle of the day for a quick 12 miles, hour long recovery naps on the break room couch, multi-tasking between reading running sites and that pesky project that needs to be done by tomorrow...I make every effort to downplay running at work and would hesitate to include it on a resume. If you make the mistake of, say, mentioning to your boss that you're running 80+ miles a week, it won't be long before they put 2 and 2 together and start to wonder how much running is cutting into your production on the job.

Being serious is a function of effort, not race time.

If you put in 208 days of running in a year (assuming no injury), I think that would qualify. That's 4 days a week all year.

What's funny is that looking at my log, I've never done it. I've been running three years, and I ran:

2009 - 192 times

2010 - 197 times

2011 - 203 times

To my credit though, in 2009 I cycled 5000 miles in addition to the running, and in 2010 I missed the better part of 10 weeks total due to injuries.

Last year I lost just a little bit of motivation for 6 weeks in the summer, only running like twice a week during that time.

I think it depends... some people on my HS team could barely break 23 minutes even when they were doing all the workouts, training over summer, etc. I could run ~17:55 for the 5K after ~2-3 days of training after a multi-month hiatus, and get down to 17:20's within 5 days. Some people who train seriously may never break 20, or 19, and some can just barely train and go sub-18. Genetics plays a large role in one's definition of "serious"

Careful there wrote:

Idontevenknow wrote:

Damn... Roger Bannister was a hobbyjogger?

If you're not making a living off of it, it's a hobby. Sad to say it.

What if it's paying for your school, idiot. Not a hobby then, eh. Guess you wouldn't know.

"Realistically, the majority of male runners will never come close to breaking 20:00."

I think if you're young (under 30), it really is not that hard. I known people who barely jogged broke 20. They were definitely not your typical American fatties but they were not even close to being a fitness freak. Most of them just played basketball once or twice a week with maybe jogging 10mpw.

I think there's a lot of poor sampling going on here. Many "slow" runners we observe probably never developed a decent athletic base, and so never got the chance to really run fast.

I will present myself as an example of somebody who is (or was) definitely a serious runner, but who cannot run a fast 5K. I'm naturally a sprinter, and my fitness is very good. However, in high school, I trained about 60 km/week for 3 years straight, and my best 5K (in cross country) was 20:0x (can't remember the x). And I was really doing all the same workouts as my peers.

However, when I switched to sprinting in my senior year of high school (and subsequently in college, D3), I was running 11/23/51 in the 100/200/400, which I know isn't that great, but is better than 20 minutes in the 5K. More proof that I'm naturally built for shorter distances is that I also ran an 800, in like 2:15 or something, and I also remember doing a 1500m in practice and the quality was already rapidly dropping off. Of course I know I could improve my endurance more, but not without devoting extreme levels of effort to it.

ah uh ok wrote:

I call BS on that.

Barakus Obama wrote:

My mother trains three times a week, she runs 21 minutes for the 5k. 24 will never be a serious 5k time.

Call all you want. Its an almost complete flat course tho.

The question is flawed because there are many variables. When I was 20 I could run 18minute 5k's with little training . Now in my late 50's I train very "serious" and rarely break 19 !

I agree that time is not a very good heuristic for "serious runner." We probably all have met one phenomenally talented guy/gal who smoked pot, slacked off and killed us on race day. But if a dude is under 15 and a woman under 17:30, it's pretty much guaranteed they've put some work in.

Sp!kes wrote:

Careful there wrote:

If you're not making a living off of it, it's a hobby. Sad to say it.

What if it's paying for your school, idiot. Not a hobby then, eh. Guess you wouldn't know.

I don't think Bannister was on a track scholarship to Oxford . . .

49.5 -> 1:49.7 -> 3:58.7 -> 8:22.4 -> 13:34.7 -> 27:58.6 -> 62:37 -> 2:16.7

No man can make a living running 49.5.

I've run faster than that, but not approached the other standards despite seriously trying. I can say that the seriousness of my 400 meters efforts do not approach that needed to make the Oly Trials in the marathon.

]ah uh ok wrote:

I call BS on that.

No, I think that's doable; I know several women who recently started running and had their 5k's under 21 minutes with 3 or 4 days of running a week. One has been running for under a year and her initial 5k time was around 25 minutes.

Does anybody have a good training plan to get under 20? Is it possible at age 39 for a male? I a, slightly overweight and run 26 minutes.

- Sid

I think if someone has been running 5+ days per week, hitting some workouts, maybe 40mpw or more for some years, they are probably serious about their running and trying to improve. Perhaps a higher standard for younger runners that don't have to cram training around family and job commitments, but not much more. I don't need to see 80mpw and a sub 15 to know someone is serious about their running.

Most of the folks I described above will at least be in the 20 minute/23 minute 5k range after a few years, even if their talent is limited. Similar training with a bit of talent probably puts them closer to 18 minutes or so. Talented runners might be around 16 minutes on that, which is why using time is tricky to determine how serious a runner is.

The talentless 20 minute 40 year old that wakes up at 4am to get in workouts on 50mpw is way more serious than the talented 25 year old that runs a couple days a week and can get under 18 without trying.

This thread from 2012 lacks context. What is it talking about? Some LRC editorial from 2012 saying RW is wrong about serious 5k times?